Skip to main content

Full text of "The national parks, 1965 : oral history transcript / and related material, 1965-1973"

See other formats



All uses of this manuscript are covered by a 
legal agreement between the Regents of the University 
of California and George B. Hartzog, dated 16 November 
1967. The manuscript is thereby made available for 
research purposes. All literary rights in the manu 
script, including the right to publish, are reserved 
to The Bancroft Library of the University of California 
at Berkeley. No part of the manuscript may be quoted 
for publication without the written permission of the 
Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of 
California at Berkeley. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication 
should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 
486 Library, and should include identification of the 
specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the 
passages, and identification of the user. The legal 
agreement with George B. Hartzog requires that he be 
notified of the request and allowed thirty days in which 
to respond. 

The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office 

George B. Hartzog 

An Interview Conducted by 
Amelia R. Fry 

Copy No. 

1973 The Regents of the University of California 

George B. Hartzog 
Director, National Park Service 


TABLE OF CONTENTS -- George B. Hartzog 



Public Support through Communication 3 

Importance of Urban Areas 7 


Conrad Wirth s Retirement 9 

Relationship to Other Agencies 13 





Procedures 45 

Redwood Park Example 49 

Committees and Congressmen 51 



APPENDIX A: S.F. Sunday Examiner and Chronicle clipping, 

dated October 15, 1967. 66 

APPENDIX B: E. T. Scoyen to United States National Park Service, 
Conference of Challenges. An Address, October 18, 
1963. 67 

APPENDIX C: Statement of George B. Hartzog, made before 
Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the 
House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, 
January 18, 1968. 72 

APPENDIX D: Listing of George B. Hartzog in Who s Who in 

America. 1967-1968. 87 

APPENDIX E: Letter from George B. Hartzog to Amelia Fry, 

December 15, 1972. 88 

APPENDIX F: Memorandum from Horace M. Albright on the 
Directorship of the National Park Service, 
December 26, 1972. 89 



National Park Director George B. Hartzog was interviewed as a 
part of the Regional Oral History Office s series on parks and conservation, 
After the interviews with former Directors Newton B. Drury and Horace 
Albright, an up-dating of the directions of national park policy and 
management was needed. Director Hartzog, as one who had most recently 
been guiding the parks, was in a unique position to comment. 

Interviewer; Amelia R. Fry. 

Time and Place; April 4, 1965, during Director Hartzog s visit 
to California for the Sierra Club s wilderness conference. The interview 
was held in Muir Woods National Monument, where the superintendent made 
his office available for the tape recording. 

The Interview; Grateful acknowledgement belongs to Newton Drury, 
who was still working on parts of his oral history at the time, for 
helping arrange Mr. Hartzog s willing consent to record the interview 
after a speech in Muir Woods. 

Seated in the desk chair in the redwood office with the staccato 
palaver of tourists outside punctuating his remarks, Mr. Hartzog answered 
the questions with the easy articulation of one who had been over them 
many times in his own mind during the past year, his first year as 

Although his busy schedule demanded an arbitrary cut-off time for 
the interview, the pace of the conversation was unrelenting but unhurried. 
His answers are thorough and thoughtful within the time frame available, 
and his dedication to park preservation and, simultaneously, the 
sometimes conflicting public availability of the lands, is fully evident. 
In fact, the theme of the interview can be his statement, "There is 
nothing easy about this. I don t think it should ever get real easy; 
if it does, I don t think the American public will appreciate their parks. 
I think we always have to be on the leading edge of concern . . . ." 

After Mr. Hartzog returned to Washington, a proposal was sent to 
him from the Regional Oral History Office to continue the taping, once 
each year, for as long as he would be in office. The transcript was held 
in limbo status while various plans were outlined and negotiations 


pursued with Cornelius Heine (then a National Park officer charged with 
planning an agency effort to preserve documentation of National Park 
Service history), with the Forest History Society, and with Director 
Hartzog. The correspondence file shows that in 1967 additional sessions 
were still being considered, and in 1969 at the Ladybird Grove 
dedication of the National Redwood Park Mr. Heine felt there was still 
a chance to allow a year-by-year current record to be recorded. 

In the meantime, the transcript was edited in 1967 (very little, 
but some) by the interviewer and sent to Mr. Hartzog, who made a few 
light emendations, mainly changes in a word here and there, and who 
also apparently had one or two close aides read it. He returned it 
January of 1968 with an agreement for open use, but further processing 
was postponed on the possibility of additional sessions. Also in early 
1968, Robert Cahn, a staff correspondent of Christian Science Monitor, 
received permission from Mr. Hartzog to use a copy of the transcript as 
part of the source material for a series of 15 articles on the national 
parks which appeared in that newspaper the spring and summer of 1968. 
Copies of three of the series are in the Hartzog file in The Bancroft 

Even though the idea of an annual interview had bogged down, 
Mr. Hartzog s interest continued and he had corroborating material sent 
for the appendix such as the 1963 speeches of Eivind Scoyen and Conrad 
Wirth. More bulky supplemental documents are filed separately with the 
interview at The Bancroft Library. 

The Regional Oral History Office has also included in the appendix 
two letters pertaining to Hartzog s resignation after the re-election 
of President Nixon in 1972: one is a letter to the interviewer from 
the Director; the other is a letter sent to the interviewer at about the 
same time from former Director Horace M. Albright, who consented to its 
inclusion in the manuscript. At this time the manuscript was final-typed 
and sent through the process of proofing, indexing, and binding. The 
National Park Service Regional Office in San Francisco is to be thanked 
for furnishing the photograph of its recent Director. 

Amelia R. Fry 


Regional Oral History Office 

20 October 1973 
486 The Bancroft Library 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 


Regional Oral History Office 

The Bancroft Library 

University of California, Berkeley 

Albright , Horace M. and 
Drury, Newton B. 

Black, Rexford 

Bryant, Harold C. and 
Drury, Newton B. 

Chaney, Ralph Works 
Clepper , Henry 

Coffman, John D. 

Colby, William E. 
Colgan, Richard 

Dana, Samuel T. 
Drury, Newton B. 
Dunshee, Bertram K. 

Evison, Herbert and 
Drury, Newton B. 

Farquhar, Francis P. 

Comments on Conservation^ 1900- 
1960. 1962. vi, 53 p. 

Private and State Forestry in 
California. 1917-1960. 1968. 159 p. 

Development of the Naturalist Pro 
gram in the National Park gervice. 

1964. vi, 49 p. 

Ralph Works Chaney _t Ph.D^. Paleo- 
botanist. Conservationist. 
1960. x, 277 p. 

The Society of American Foresters. 
1968. 36 p. (Bound with Hornaday 
and Pomeroy.) 

Forest Protection in :the National 
Parks. 1973. ix, 126 p. 

Reminiscences. 1954. vi, 145 p. 

Forestry in the California Pine 
Region. 1968. 50 p. (Bound with 
Krueger . ) 

The Development of Forestry in 
Government and Education. 1967. 98 p. 

Parks and Redwoods. 2 vols. 1972. 
xxii, 772 p. 

Land Planning in Marin County. 

1965. v, 53 p. 

The National Park Service^ and Civilian 
Conservation Corps. 1963. vii, 143 p. 

Francis P. Farquhar on Accountancy, 
Mountaineering, and the National Parks. 
I960, xv, 376 p. 

French, Enoch Percy and 
Drury, Newton B. 

Cruising and Protecting the Redwoods 
of Humboldt. 1963. vi, 86 p. 

Fritz, Eraanuel 
Gill, Tom 

Granger, Christopher 
Hall, Ansel F. 

Hall, R. Clifford 

Hartzog, George B. 
Hornaday, Fred E. 

Isaac, Leo 

Knowland, Joseph R. and 
Drury, Newton B. 

Krueger, Myron E. 

Lowdermilk, Walter C. 

Lund, Walter 

McCulloch, Walter 
Metcalf, Woodbridge 
Miller, Loye H. 

Emanuel Fritz: Teacher. Editor, and 
Forestry Consultant. 1972. xiii, 336 p. 

The Summary of the Career of Tom Gill. 
International Forester. 1969. vi, 75 p. 

Forest Management in the United States 
Forest Service. 1965. xiv, 131 p. 

A conversation between Ansel F. Hall 
and Francis P. Farquhar, appended to 
Francis P. Farquhar volume. 1958. 34 p. 

Forest Taxation Study 1926-1935. 1967. 
vii, 113 p. (Bound with Shepard.) 

The National Parks. 1965. 1973. 90 p. 

The American Forestry Association; 
1928-1964. 1968. 20 p. (Bound 
with Clepper and Pomeroy.) 

Douglas Fir Research in the Pacific 
Northwest. 1967. 152 p. 

Conservation and Politics. 1965. ix, 
120 p. 

Forestry and Technology in Northern 
California. 1968. 27 p. (Bound 
with Colgan.) 

Soil. Forest, and Water Conservation 
in China. Israel. Africa, and the 
United States. 2 vols. 1969. xxxix, 
704 p. 

Timber Management in the Pacific 
Northwest. 1927-1965. 1967. vi, 
83 p. 

Forestry and Education in Oregon. 
1937-1966. 1968. viii, 216 p. 

Extension Forester. 1926-1956. 
1969. vii, 138 p. 

The Interpretive Naturalist. 1970. 
ix , 61 p . 

Four interviews on John Muir by 
personal acquaintances John Briones, 
William Colby, Dr. Herbert Evans, 
and Frank Swett. 1971. 106 p. 

Hunger, Thornton T. 
Packard, Walter E. 

Peirce, Earl S. 
Pomeroy, Kenneth B. 

Ringland, Arthur C. 

Schofield, William R. 
Shepard, Harold B. 

Show, Stuart Bevier 
Sieker, John H. 

Swift, Lloyd 

Forest Research in the Northwest. 

1967. x, 245 p. 

Land and Power Development in 
California. Greece, and Latin 
America. 1970. xiv, 603 p. 

Salvage Programs Following the 
1938 Hurricane. 1968. viii, 52 p. 

The American Forestry Association; 
Operations. 1968. 21 p. (Bound 
with Clepper and Hornaday.) 

Conserving Human and Natural 
Resources. 1970. xvi, 538 p. 

Lobbying in California. 1968. 159 p. 

The Forest Insurance Study, a written 
memoir. 1967. 6 p. (Bound with R. 
Clifford Hall.) 

National Forests in California. 
1965. xvi, 215 p. 

Recreation Policy and Administration 
in the United States Forest Service. 

1968. xi, 49 p. (Bound with Swift.) 

Wildlife .Policy and Administration 
in the United States Forest Service. 
1968. 29 p. (Bound with Sieker.) 


Eddy Tree Breeding Station 

Gladys Austin 
Jack Carpender 
W.C. Gumming 
A. R. Liddicoet 
Nicholas Mirov 
R. I. Righter 

Kneipp, Leon F. 

Kotok, E.I. 

A six-part volume of individual 
interviews with men and women 
who participated in the estab 
lishment and early work of the 
Eddy Tree Breeding Station near 
Placerville, California. 

Assistant Chief of the U.S. Forest 
Service in charge of lands and 

Assistant Chief of the U.S. Forest 
Service in charge of research, of 
state and private forestry. 

Marsh, Raymond E. 

Nelson, DeWitt 
Roberts, Paul 

Assistant Chief of the U.S. Forest 
Service in charge of economic re 

State natural resources administrator. 
Forest Service administrator. 

October 1973 

(Interview: April 4, 1965) 


Fry: First I d like to ask about your background, 

where you were born and what kind of schooling 
you had. 
Hartzog: Well, I was born in 1920 on a farm in South 

Carolina in the lower part of the state in Colleton 
County. I went to public school. The school that 
I graduated from was a military preparatory school 
in the town of Bamberg, South Carolina, Carlisle 
Military School. After graduating from there in 1937 
I went to Wofford College in Spartenberg, South 
Carolina for one semester until I had to stop school 
and go to work because of family difficulties. 

I went to work as a stenographer, from there 
went into a law office as a stenographer and studied 
law at night in the law office. I passed the bar 
examination and was admitted to practice law in 1942. 
In the meantime, I had gone into the Service in 1940 
with the National Guard when it was inducted, and I 
got out in 1941 just before Pearl Harbor. I went back 
into the Service for the second time in 1943. 

After the war I went to work for the Department 
of Interior as an attorney in the Bureau of Land 

Hartzog: Management. After six months there, I left the 

bureau and went to work for a law firm in Washington 
and was there only a matter of a few weeks when the 
National Park Service offered me a job as an attorney 
the National Park Service office was then in Chicago. 
So I went to Chicago for the National Park Service 
as an attorney, and a year later the office was 
transferred back to Washington, and I stayed there a 
few weeks and was then transferred down to Lake Texoma, 
at Denison, Texas. 

It was an area which we administered under a 
cooperative agreement with the Corps of Engineers. 
There I served as regional attorney for the Southwest 
Region of National Park Service. I was out there about 
ten months , and then I went back to Washington as a 
lawyer . 

In 1950 I was detailed - and then later trans 
ferred - to the concessions management work of the 
National Park Service. I stayed in that office until 
1955, when I went to Rocky Mountain National Park as 
assistant superintendent. In 1957 I went to the Great 
Smoky Mountains as assistant superintendent. 

In 1959 I went to St. Louis as superintendent of 
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, which was 

Hartzog: a big project just then beginning to be developed 
on the river front, telling the story of westward 
expansion. I stayed there until the bulk of the 
money had been obligated and the majority of the 
work had been put under contract; and then a private 
organization offered me a job as executive director 
of Downtown St. Louis Incorporated, which I accepted 
in 1962, resigning from the National Park Service in 
July. Shortly after I left the Service, Connie 
Wirth and Secretary Udall offered me the job of 
Associate Director of the Park Service, and I went 
back with the Service in February of 1963. And 
then I took over as Director in January 1964. 

Public Support Through Communication 

Fry: Would you like to say anything concerning this path 
you have just laid out for us here, of experiences 
you ve had which you think have a bearing on your 
role now as director of the National Parks? For 
instance, I noticed you said your concessions 
management work in 1950 took up a lot of your time. 
Do you find that this is valuable to you now? 
Hartzog: Well, I do. As a matter of fact, during the time 
that I was in Washington, the period beginning in 

Hartzog: 1948 when I went back to Washington from Lake 

Texoma - that seven years - I went to night school 
at the American University and got a degree in 
business administration. And I also came within 
three hours of being able to finish the Master s 
Degree in business administration. This was a 
period during which I was also working in concessions, 

I find it to be very beneficial; I think that 
more and more big government and big business have 
a great deal in common. I found this to be true 
when I left the government and went with a private 
organization. While it was an association of 
business people, I had an opportunity to observe 
some of their own operations and procedures. So 
I think that all this has been a great help to me. 

I think there is another thing that I learned, 
in St. Louis particularly: the need for a great deal 
of communication with a great many people when you 
are involved in a big project. Particularly when 
you are involved in a project that has a lot of 
controversy, which this particular project did have 
in St. Louis. For example, the first contract that 
we awarded in St. Louis, we had to have it agreed to 

Hartzog: by sixteen different cooperating organizations in 
order to get it out. But this we were able to do. 
This experience also impressed upon me the need for 
waiting until you get all your facts before you make 
up your mind. The need to go talk to the other 
person and to find out what is on his mind, because 
sometimes lack of communications is really at the 
root of the problem. Rather than there being a 
problem in itself, it s just the fact that people 
aren t talking, and what they don t understand they 
are generally against. 
Fry: So that this also has a bearing on being sure where 

your support lies before you make a decision. 
Hartzog: Well, not necessarily where your support lies 

(but certainly you want to know what your support 
is; you want to know where your emphasis should be); 
even more important than this, you want to be sure 
that when you have finished with a subject, and 
are ready to make a decision on it, you ve got a 
better case against yourself than the other fellow 
has. This is, 1 suppose, not only from my training 
with the Park Service and government, but my legal 
background as well. When you start doing your brief, 

Hartzog: you want to make sure you research the cases for 

the opposition as well as for your own, so that you 
understand what the issue is. 

Fry: 1 think that we should mention here some of your 
major projects when you were a solicitor for the 
National Parks. 

Hartzog: No, I was just an attorney in the Chief Counsel s 
office; I was in charge of the regulations and 
contracts activity in the Chief Counsel s office. 
And it was because of this experience that I got 
involved in the concessions work, which involved 
at the time the difficulties - which I m sure 
Mr. Drury and Mr. Albright have talked with you 
about - involving concession policies, contract 
language, and negotiation of these contracts.* 
Fry: Was this where you crossed over the line from strict 
legal work into more general park service work? 

Hartzog: Yes, that is right. 

Fry: Well, then for our purposes I think I d like to skip 
over the Jefferson Expansion Memorial part, and 

*cf . Drury, Newton Bishop and Albright, Horace 
Marden, "Comments on Conservation, 1900 to 1960," typed 
transcript of tape-recorded interview conducted by 
Amelia Roberts Fry, University of California General 
Library Regional Oral History Office, (Berkeley, 1962). 
In Bancroft Library. 

Fry: I gather that you ve just distilled out for us the 
experience there that you thought was important. 

Importance of Urban Areas 

Hartzog: I think so. I think that there is another aspect 
of this which has made a great impression on me, 
and that is the part that parks play for people in 
urban environments, the fact that the federal govern 
ment has a very important part in this total picture 
of dealing with parks and open space in urban environ 
ment. This is where our country was born, as a 
matter of fact, in towns and communities. 

The National Park Service is deeply involved 
in city parks. A lot of people are under the mis 
apprehension that we don t know too much about city 
parks, when as a matter of fact, the National Park 
Service probably runs more city parks than any other 
particular instrumentality of government in existence. 
Starting with St. Augustine and all the way to Boston, 
Massachusetts, and following the flow of civilization 
westward, we run city parks. There are some 750 odd 
of them in the District of Columbia, and that is some 
40,000 acres right there alone. There is a 91 acre 
park right on the river front in St. Louis, you see. 


Hartzog: So we have a tremendous city park program, which 
I don t think we ve ever really related to the 
total broad picture of park administration and 
wilderness preservation. 

This is one of the things I was trying to say 
to the Wilderness Conference here this week, that 
all these things are tied together. You can t 
protect wilderness by drawing a boundary line 
around it and saying this is "wilderness" and we 
are going to protect this, without some understand 
ing and some relating of these things all the way 
back to where people are in the cities, because 
this is why you are protecting the lands and this 
is why you want to preserve them, so that they can 
be of value and benefit to people. If you are going 
to do this, then I think you have to relate all of 
this. I think you start relating it right where 
people are, and that is in town. 


Conrad Wirth s Retirement 
Fry: I ran across an article in the New York Times 

when Conrad Wirth first announced his decision to 
resign. It said that some in the Park Service had 
felt that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation s activities 
should have been handled by the National Park Service, 
and in turn administration officials regard the Park 
Service as being "inbred and so professional that 
it has lost sight of its obligation to the public."* 
Can you give us some light on the context in which 
this occurred? 

Hartzog: Well, as a matter of fact, what I could give you 
is probably no different than what you can get by 
reading Connie s own statement at the conference 
in Yosemite in 1963.** The word resign was used, and 
I think that it was an unfortunate word; because, 
as a matter of fact, he retired. I think that this 
whole thing to be understood, has to be related to 
what Eivind Scoyen said at the conference at Yosemite 
and also a letter which Eivind Scoyen sent to many 
people throughout the United States following this. 
When he resigned (There again one uses this word 

*New York Times. October 17, 1963, p. 25, column 1. 
**cf. appendix. 


Hartzog: "resign" when one is really talking about retiring. 
Nobody could say that Eivind Scoyen resigned; he 
served some 50-odd years in the Park Service.) when 
Eivind Scoyen was ready to retire, as he relates the 
story, he told the Director, who was at that time 
Connie Wirth, and Connie Wirth asked him and several 
other people to sit as a committee to select a list 
of nominees for associate director. One of the 
committee was John Preston, the superintendent at 
Yosemite; another was Ronnie Lee, who was Regional 
Director of the Northeast Region; Tom Vint, who was 
at that time the chief of the design and construction 
organization; and Kivind Scoyen and himself, Connie 
Wirth. They selected five names, and I was one of 
the five. 

Eivind Scoyen tells the story that I was the 
number one nominee of the five; John Preston tells 
the same story. I know that there was such a list, 
because before I resigned from the Park Service in 
1962, I went to Washington and talked to Connie Wirth 
and asked him what the future was for me in the 
National Park Service. And at that time I told him 
I knew that this job was open. I told him that the 
people in St. Louis had made me a very attractive 


Hartzog: proposition, much better than what I then had, 

but that my whole life had been in the Park Service. 
I said that if there was something in the offing for 
me in the Park Service that was different from what 
I had then as superintendent I wanted to evaluate 
it in that context, rather than in the context of 
superintendent of the Memorial. (The grade 
structure of the National Park Service at that time 
was such that a Civil Service rank of GS 15 was as 
high as you could go, unless you became an assistant 
director or regional director of the National Capitol 
Region, or associate director or director - these 
are the only higher grades in the Park Service. So 
I was as far as I could go in the context of the 
field service.) At that time Connie Wirth told me 
that there was a list of people under consideration 
for the job of associate director, and that my name 
was on that list. He didn t tell me that I was going 
to get the job, or that I was going to be offered the 

So, therefore, the only thing I had to consider 
was my position as superintendent at St. Louis in 
relation to what the people in St. Louis were offering 


Hartzog: me. So I resigned and accepted their offer. It was 
only after I did that the nominations for associate 
director were finally sent to the Secretary, and on 
the basis of these nominations the job was offered 
to me. So you see, insofar as the filling of the 
associate director s job was concerned, this was 
a well-thought-out process. 

Now, at the time that I came back into the 
Service, Connie Wirth told me, as he had told 
a lot of other people (he had made no public announce 
ment on this, but he had certainly told us this, 
and he said as much at Yosemite when this whole 
thing developed) that he was going to retire because 
he was going to be sixty-four years old in 1964. 
He felt that people should retire in their early 
sixties. And I know that he believed this, because 
at one time he actually moved in the direction of 
trying to encourage the same kind of practice with 
respect to retirement from the Park Service that the 
Forest Service encourages, and that is, retirement 
at sixty-two. Connie was then sixty-four years old, 
so for a full year or more in advance of his retire 
ment, I knew he was going to retire. Several other 


Hartzog: people were aware of the fact that he was going 

to retire. So that the context of the news publicity 
that this was a precipitous act on his part is 
certainly not supported by the facts as I know them 
to be. All of this is a matter of record in those 
talks that were made down at Yosemite. What was 
the other part of the question? 

Relationship to Other Agencies 

Fry: I didn t so much get the idea that his retirement 
was precipitous, but that it was a kind of slow 
evolutionary result of the change of administration 
from Eisenhower to Kennedy, and also in the New 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, set up in the Depart 
ment of the Interior but intended to include 
recreation aspects of other departments too.* 
Hartzog: Well, now let s talk about that. I know, of course, 
and I think a lot of people are aware of the fact 
that the National Park Service was not elated 
about the prospect of this recommendation of the 
commission for a separate bureau, because they felt 
they had the authority to do what the Outdoor 

* cf . New York Times, re: Departments of Agriculture 
and Interior settle disputes over recreation 
areas. Freeman and Udall: "We have closed the 
books on these disputes." President Kennedy 
lauds agreement. February 2, 1963, p. 4, column 6. 


Hartzog: Recreation and Resources Review Commission was 
suggesting be done; they had just never been 
financed to do it. And actually the National Park 
Service did have much of the authority under the 
1936 Park, Parkway and Recreation Area Study Act. 
The nation-wide recreation planning that had been 
done up to the time of the ORRRC had in fact been 
done by the National Park Service. This new pub 
lication, Parks for America, is part of this whole 
planning program. There has been no secret about 
the opposition of the Park Service, either during 
the formulation of this recommendation by ORRRC or 
after it was made, because they felt they could 
do it. And I think an acknowledgment of the fact 
that the authority existed, is the fact that when 
the Secretary established the Bureau of Outdoor 
Recreation, he established it on the basis of the 
authority that then existed in the Department of 
Interior to carry on these activities. 

It s true that the organic act of the Bureau 
greatly expanded the authority which had previously 
existed, you see; and this is the organic act now 
of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. But that came 
later - oh, a year, a year and a half after the 


Hartzog: Bureau was in existence. This is something that 

I also think careful research can develop and fill 
out the details on. 

Fry: Well, before you leave this, the question has been 
raised in previous interviews about whether ORRRC 
was dominated more by the Forest Service, which 
was not to the interest of the Park Service. 

Hartzog: Well, during this whole time, I was in the field, 
and as I mentioned to you walking up here, this 
is one of the reasons why for the first year I 
have been in Washington I have spent most of my 
time in the field trying to get reacquainted with 
the broad programs of the Service, because when 
you re in these field areas you hear a lot of stuff, 
but you don t know what is going on in any precise 
factual manner; you get what we in the Park 
Service call the grapevine, you know. I ve heard 
this same rumor, but I have no basis for forming a 
judgment one way or the other. And as a matter of 
fact, when I arrived on the scene in Washington, the 
whole issue had been resolved. And I spent my time 
trying to establish a rapport and working relationship 
with the new Bureau, which I felt to be in the interest 
of just good government management of the people s 


Hartzog: business. So I have very frankly never made any 
effort to ascertain whether the Forest Service 
influence on ORRRC is true or false, because it s 
history; it either is a fact or isn t a fact. I 
don t think that it is germane to my relationship 
with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and therefore, 
I had a lot of other things I have been busier trying 
to get done. 

Fry: You had a job handed to you with that as past 

Hartzog: That s right, so I think that within the past two 

and one-half years, we ve succeeded in establishing 
a very favorable working climate with the Bureau of 
Outdoor Recreation and with the Forest Service. It 
has contributed to moving the program of the Park 
Service; this is my area of responsibility, and this 
is what I m primarily interested in, but I 
likewise am sensitive to what is good management. 
I think that for the good of all of our programs, 
in particular for the good of my own, that it s 
important that you have a working rapport with 
these bureaus; and this is what I ve devoted my 
efforts to, rather than trying to verify whether 
this or that piece of scuttlebutt is a fact. 


Fry: Is this a rapport between the top level directors? 

Hartzog: It is. 

Fry: And what role does Secretary Udall play in this? Or 
is he above it all? - - no I don t think he s above 
it all. 

Hartzog: well ne f course, is actually the creator; I 
think he is the moving spirit, really, in the im 
provement of the relationship between the Department 
of Interior and the Department of Agriculture. It 
involves things beyond just my area of programming; 
in answering your question I was talking particularly 
about our own program in the Park Service . But he 
is very sensitive to the need to work with people 
in the cooperative context. 

It was this initiative between him and 
Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman which I 
think laid the basis, and was certainly the motivating 
factor in my own efforts to try to improve the climate 
of our working relationship. For example at one time 
I understand that there were very fine working 
relationships between the Park Service and the 
Forest Service. This involved getting the top level 
people in the bureaus together. We have reinstituted 
this practice. We have dinner sessions with the top 


Hartzog: management of the Forest Service; we have joint 

regional directors meetings with them, and we have 
also had a joint regional directors meeting with the 
Urban Renewal Administration, because of my belief 
that parks are a catalyst for the enhancement of 
people s own daily lives in these metropolitan 
areas. The Secretary believes this very deeply as 
his own speeches indicate; the President believes 
this; this is an administration program. So I 
think the rapport not only exists at the top 
between BOR Director Ed Crafts and Forest Service 
Chief Ed Cliff and myself, I think it exists at 
the lower echelons of our organizations. 

Certainly you have disappointments, I mean 
you have misunderstandings which arise down in the 
working levels of the organization. You wonder how 
they happen, but they happen. This is working with 
people again; that is really what it boils down to. 
Fry: You have all the support --maybe I should even use 
the word "pressure" that you need from the top, 
including the President, to bring the two together 
at this point? 

Hartzog: Yes, that s right. And the Secretary is thoroughly 
committed to this, so this is no fragmentary effort 


Hartzog: on my part. It is a concerted departmental effort, 
I think. And I think, really, it is a movement of 
government generally to arrive at improvement in 
management. This is a stated objective of our President 
right now. 



Fry: Do you think that the parks are more secure in 

being the agency for protection of areas than they 
have been? 

Hartzog: Oh, I definitely think so. I think that every day 
that passes, the parks are more secure than they 
were the day before; because I think there is an 
increasing awareness, an appreciation on the part 
of the people today for parks, such that the battles 
that the early directors of the Park Service went 
through no longer face me. Then it was a question 
of wanting to, in effect, raid the parks of their 
natural resources. This is not the question now. 
The big argument that we are having today is, 
"Now, how much of this are you going to let people 
use?" You read Steve Mather s works for example; 
he was going around trying to get railroads to 
advertise parks and taking tours out of his own money 
just to get people to go, to know that parks existed, 
you see. Today the real crux of the fight is not 
people who want to take parks away, but people who 
want to use parks more. I think the concept of parks 
is more secure today than it has ever been. 


Fry: What do you see then, as the major threats to parks 
now? The population increase, I guess, is one. 
Newton Drury has mentioned the hydroelectric 
power interests, and the mining interests, and 
loggers have always been a part of it. Is this 
changing now? 

Hartzog: Well, they always have been a part of it, certainly, 
and there is mining still authorized in some few 
parks. But I think that the dramatic evidence of 
what I am saying to you is the fact that while the 
Executive Department endorsed the Canyonlands 
National Park last year with a phase -out of mining, 
the Congress struck it down completely. So that 
for the very first time that I can recall offhand, 
they just chopped it right off at the pockets. 
Fry: Congress had mining stopped immediately, you mean? 

Hartzog: Absolutely. And this was done by the Congress 
itself. So I think this has laid to rest the 
person who wants to raid a park for mining. But 
we still have on the books , mining for some of 
these parksDeath Valley, Glacier Bay, and Mount 
McKinley. We are going to have to face up to those, 
and I am sure that when we do, we are going to have 
a fight. I mean - don t misunderstand me - the 
matter of getting rid of these adverse uses that 


Hartzog: are now authorized always involves a fight. There 
is nothing easy about this. I don t think it 
should ever get real easy; if it does, I don t 
think the American public will appreciate their 
parks. I think we always have to be on the leading 
edge of concern, in order to really have a sense 
of appreciation. If you re not alert to it and 
aware of it, you are not very often appreciative 
of it. 

Fry: As Congress is constituted in this year, it seems 
to me that you might have more luck in getting 
legislation like this through now than at any other 

Hartzog: There is no question about it. 

Fry: So is this a part of your job too? 

Hartzog: That s right, and I think that as we study the 

parks from the standpoint of the Wilderness Act, 
that these will be questions that will be resolved. 
Because you see, under the Wilderness Act, we have 
to examine these areas in the parks and prepare 
reports to the Secretary, and he, in turn, reports 
to the President and the Congress on areas that 
ousht to be included in the Wilderness Preservation 
System. When these things come up, I m sure that 


Hartzog: these questions of mining are going to be involved, 
and they are going to be resolved. Either the 
Congress is going to say it s all right to continue, 
or they are going to say stop it. I m optimistic 
that with the tremendous surge of interest in parks, 
Congress is going to say, "Stop it," insofar as 
the parks are concerned . I think there is a real 
promise and hope for this. 
Fry: This brings up the question of how the national 

parks operate in relation to the Hill and getting 
legislation through. Maybe a good way to describe 
this, would be to take one example and tell us 
of your efforts, how you operate both in gathering 
public support and in working directly with the 
Congress. Would the wilderness bill be a good 

Hartzog: No, I didn t have too much experience with the 
Wilderness Act. I think that it would probably 
be more relevant for your purposes to talk about 
a piece of park legislation. But I d like to talk 
just another moment, if I may, about the import of 
of the question you asked earlier as to what is the 
impact of the adverse influences so to speak, that 
threatens parks today. Is it people, or is it miners 
and dams ? 


Hartzog: You are always going to have this issue of dams, 
as long as you have free-flowing streams, you know; 
somebody wants to get hydroelectric power or some 
other thing out of it. I think the Secretary really 
put this in perspective, and the President has too, 
from the standpoint that this really involves a 
challenge of a balance in all these things , and I 
think the balance has been pretty well established 
now that they are not going to have these things 
in the parks. Now I am aware of the Bridge Canyon 
decision of the Secretary, and this may impinge 
on the Grand Canyon National Park. 

But I think that one of the things that we 
really have to think about in terms of park manage 
ment, is something which historically the Park 
Service and the conservationists have shied away 
from, and that is this question of funiculars and 
tramways and railroads and other modes of trans 
portation for the movement of people in parks. 
Historically, we have been bound to roads and 
trails. If you want the visiting public to go 
someplace, you build a road, if you want them to 
drive there; and if you want them to walk there 
you build a trail. We find now in many places, 
that you ve got to build two trails. You ve 


Hartzog: got to build one for those that want to ride on a 

horse and another for those who want to walk, because 
if you get too many horses and too many people, 
then it is just like cows and people in picnic areas 
they just don t go together. 

Well, there are many places it seems to me 
that we have gotten confused in our thinking about 
what these mechanical devices really do. They can 
be used for entertainment that is irrelevant to 
the purpose of the park, and for this reason we 
have said, "No, we don t want them." You know, 
there has been proposal after proposal for a tram 
way from the rim to the bottom of Grand Canyon, 
"purely a thrill ride." But these also serve a 
very utilitarian purpose of moving large quantities 
of people. In Europe and in other places they have 
done a marvelous job of developing the utilitarian 
aspects of these devices and saving their landscapes. 
It seems to me that we are going to have to face up 
to this question, and I mentioned this at the 
Wilderness Conference yesterday. I think it is not 
too early that we do some thinking about this tradition 
al opposition to mechanical lifts and funiculars and 
railroads in the National Parks because I think that 


Hartzog: these, perhaps, in many instances can be the greatest 
conservation devices that we have in national parks. 
I do not believe that you are going to be able to 
lock the gates on national parks. You can close 
the campground when it is full, but just to tell 
the American public, who own these parks, that they 
can t come in -- I don t think that this is something 
that is in the realm of possibility at this time. 
Fry: You are a lawyer. Would locking the gates be acting 
against the original Antiquities Act, maybe? 

Hartzog: Oh, yes. I feel this way about it, I don t think 

that we ought to seriously consider any such things 
as this. 

I think that there are areas which ought to be 
developed, and there are areas which ought not to be 
developed. I think that there are areas which have 
a capacity; and when that capacity is reached, then 
you ought not to have any greater capacity there, 
because you endanger the very values that merit the 
development or the protection of this area in the 
first place. But this you can do through mass 
movements of people a lot easier, and a lot more 
effectively and efficiently, it seems to me, than 
you can by horseback or by automobiles or by roads, 


Hartzog: which has been the historical way of doing it. 

Fry: Because it is more highly controlled when the trans 
portation is handled by the Park. 

Hartzog: That s right; I mean, for example, you ve got high 
mountain chalets, let s assume. You know what the 
capacity is; you know what the trail heads accommodate; 
you know how many campgrounds you ve got up there. 
So if you have a tramway, and that is the way that 
you get people up there, you ve got a funicular and 
that is the way you get people up there; then when 
you have got the limit in the capacity up there, 
you cut off the power and go home, and that is all 
that you ve got up there. But if you are going to 
build a road up there, you haven t got as much 
control. They are going to get there; and when they 
get there, they are going to spend the night. We have 
this happen at place after place in the parks. People 
will be using it to two or three or four times its 
capacity; it s because they got there and they are 
just not going to leave, that s all. I ve been out 
in the field, and I know what these boys are up against. 
You get a person who has driven five or six hundred 
miles to get there, his wife is tired, his children 
are hungry, and you tell him to pull out. You are 


Hartzog; going to get a lot of conversation. 

Fry: This could come up in Congressional hearings. 

Hartzog: Yes, it sure could. 

Fry: Do you think that this might be used in a place 

like Yosemite to move campers to higher campgrounds, 
so that you can put your campgrounds in less 
scenic places? 

Hartzog: Well, I think this is something that we have to 
study very carefully; this is the kind of thing 
that it seems to me that we have to talk about. 
One of the places that I do know, because I was 
stationed there, is the Smokies. In several places 
in the Great Smoky Mountains, for example, there 
are old log beds where the railroad trains you 
know, logging trains used to go up to haul their 
timber out. You could lay down tracks on those 
today without any serious damage to the landscape 
and move quantities of people. Now, we ve got 
to move people around in the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park because the visitation there has 
reached the point where you are going to have to 
face up to this issue. We have had a master plan 
team in there, and they have been studying it, and 
they have made some recommendations that we have got 


Hartzog: to face up to how we are going to move people 
in the Great Smokies, because traffic backs up 
seven miles on that one road through the park. 
You just can t continue to protect the park with 
that kind of a situation. 
Fry: Apparently the population from all the Eastern 

seaboard cities funnels into that park on that one 
road on weekends. 

Hartzog: Why sure it does. I don t think that this is a lot 
different than what the President has been talking 
about, that is, that he wants a 100-mile-per-hour 
railroad train between Washington and Boston. This 
is where you have got great concentrations of people, 
and you are going to have to move them. 

Highway engineers are projecting statistics 
today, that if they really told you how wide they 
would have to build that road to accommodate the 
expected numbers of automobiles, it would literally 
shock people out of their chairs. I mean, there are 
some of these statistics and projections which in 
dicate that roads which we are building right now 
that are eight lanes, on the very day that they are 
finished they will be inadequate. Well, now how much 
wider are you going to build these, and how many more 


Hartzog: of these are you going to build? You can t build 

these up to a National Park and all the way around 
it, and then say, "We are just going to have one road 
through the park." Still everybody has to come in 
an automobile. 

So this is why I think that all of us have to 
do some constructive thinking about how we are going 
to cope with this problem of taking care of people 
in a park because everybody isn t going to walk in. 
Particularly in an area the size of Yellowstone, for 
example, two million acres. 

Fry: The parks at present are not used by an across- 
the-board sampling of the public I understand. 
They are used by people usually in the higher in 
comes and in the higher education levels too, I 
think. I wondered if you knew of any change in the 
park-use profile. 

Hartzog: Well, I was very much interested in the observation 
that was made at the Wilderness Conference yesterday 
on this point. But again, I think that we get con 
fused about parks and about what are parks , and 
what kind of areas does the National Park Service 
manage? The natural parks of the West are largely 
used by people who can afford an automobile to drive 
there. And there are lots of people in this country 


Hartzog: who still don t have automobiles who can drive there. 
If you are talking about the parks we manage in 
metropolitan Washington and Philadelphia, they are 
used by people who don t have automobiles to drive 
to Yellowstone. So if you count all of them and 
compare them with those in Yellowstone, I am not 
sure that we don t have a pretty well-rounded profile 
now of people using the parks, you see? 

But this is how people look at the Park Service 
as being in the business of managing the large areas 
of western parks , and then they overlook the eastern 
parks and particularly the metropolitan parks which 
do get very heavy use from a large and wide range of 
economical and educational levels. It is a different 
kind of use; it is purely and simply a desire to get 
outside and get on some green grass and relax and 
play ball and that kind of thing -- as opposed to 
taking a hike through the mountains . 

Fry: Well, another change that I was thinking about in park 
use was that there has been a rise in the problem of 
vandalism, so that perhaps the duties of the ranger 
on the ground are changing somewhat.* Do you find 
that this is true? 

*c-f. New York Times , William M. IJiair series on national 
parks; Rise in crime and park ranger s policing 
task, March 26, 1964, p. 24, col. 3. 


Hartzog: Yes, I think that this is true. I think that our 

rangers are facing more and more the responsibilities 
of a law enforcement officer. And for the first time, 
this summer we are going to employ seasonally some 
actual policemen. Of course all of our rangers in 
uniform are policemen, and they have law enforcement 
authority. I mean people who are trained in police 
work--to put in some of the larger parks. 

An interesting thing happens, I think, when we 
think of Yosemite, for example, as a great wilderness 
park, which it is, but Yosemite Valley is a great 
metropolitan area in the summertime. So you have got 
all of the problems that you have in a metropolitan 
environment anywhere else in the United States in 
Yosemite Valley in the summertime. This then 
involves someone who understands and knows the 
profession of police. We don t train our rangers 
in this kind of depth in law enforcement, So we 
are going to get professionally trained police officers 
in some of these situations. 



Fry: You mentioned that you have your planning staff working 
on the Great Smoky Mountains problem, and I wanted to 
ask you if there has been any difference in your re 
search arm since you took over?* 

Hartzog: Yes, we are reorganized. Well, following the Yosemite 
Conference of 1963 Connie Wirth was still there, but 
we were reorganizing it on the basis of the plan that 
had been agreed to. The research activity was pulled 
out of the operating divisions of history, natural 
history, and ranger activities, and it was centered 
in an assistant director for resource studies. 

It has not gotten off to as good a start as I 
had hoped it would. There have been some organizational 
problems. But I think this is the preferable solution 
to handling research. This does not mean that we re 
not going to have some of our operating people doing 
research, but if they do it, from now on they are going 
to do it under a coordinated, organized plan of re 
search where you know you are getting your money s 
worth. You get a report, you get some recommendations, 

*cf. New York Times, re: charges by National 
Academy of Sciences that the National Park Service has 
not developed a research program to meet its operational 
needs, October 19, 1963, p. 6. 


Hartzog: and you can apply it to a problem. Furthermore, we are 
going to have the problems identified as to which we are 
going to select for research, rather than just letting some 
person research because he likes to do it. 
Fry: You ll arrive at this from a definition of problems? 

Hartzog: Right. 

Fry: What about reorganization of the whole service? 

Hartzog: Well, there were several things that we tried to do in the 

reorganization, and it is still under-going adjustment. This 
was one of them, getting this research out. Secondly, was to 
strengthen the whole interpretive program. I think our inter 
pretation had slipped in many places; we had kind of gotten 
stereotyped in our presentation of visuals and this kind of 
thing. So we have reoriented and reorganized our interpre 
tative staff at the Washington level, including our museum 

Fry: I wanted to ask you if in your reorganization you have a 
special department to look at this problem of parks and 
recreation in urban environments. 

Hartzog: No, we don t, and this is one thing that we have been talk 
ing about very seriously, as to whether or not we shouldn t 
have some strong executive leadership at the Washington 
level for our urban park program. So far we have felt that 
so much has been done in the last year and a half, that maybe 
we ought to let the organization set awhile, you know. It s 


Hartzog: getting to be a big outfit, and communications are getting 
difficult because from the time you make a decision and the 
people start hearing about it, until they are finally able 
to read about it, is a long lag in a big organization. The 
result is, you are always confronted with rumors, and these 
are disquieting things to the morale of an organization. So 
we have decided that we are just going to leave this one alone 
for awhile. But this is something that we ve got to face up 
to, in my judgment, and strengthen very definitely. 



Hartzog: The other thing is that the Secretary s Advisory Board on 

Wildlife Management,* which was chaired by Starker Leopold, 
made some very keen insights into the wildlife management 
problems of the Service; and then over and above this, made 
some suggestions with respect to the broader aspects of 
management, pointing out, for example, that many of the prob 
lems that we have in a park cannot be solved in the park. In 
other words, parks are not in a vacuum. Everything that 
happens outside affects what happens inside, and what happens 
inside has a relationship to what goes on outside. So we 
have reorganized the resources management program of the Park 
Service to try to recognize this and develop some real manage 
ment programs for resources that are in the system. 

This involves also a recognition of the fact that all 
areas in the park system are not alike. Historically, we 
have just had one set of policies for everything, whether 
it was a park or recreation area or historical area. I think 
one of the classic examples is a policy which said that in 
the National Parks there will be no grazing, and yet in his 
torical areas, we encourage pasturage. 

This kind of dichotomy left a lot of confusion about 

*cf. New York Times, re: Secretary Udall presenting 
award to National Park Advisory Board on Wildlife Management 
for its study of controversial wildlife policies, April 16, 
1964, p. 61, col. 4. 


Hartzog: just where we were and what our policies were. When you 

review the legislative history of the National Park System, 
it is very clear and the Secretary recognized this in his 
memorandum of July 10, 1964 on the management of the National 
Park System that the Congress has very clearly placed in this 
system three kinds of areas: there are natural areas, which 
are preserves for the natural values that are there, scenic, 
scientific, whatever; and there are historical areas, areas 
which are devoted primarily to the preservation of some 
great moment or event of history; and then there are areas 
which are set aside for recreation, for pursuits of the 
people this is what it says they are for. These things 
require that they be managed differently, if you are going 
to protect the resources that are there and if you are 
really going to do a creative management job. This is what 
we are now trying to do in our resources management . We 
have a revised statement of policies now for each of these 
catagories, which is undergoing review. We are revising 
the regulations, and we are going to have three sets of 
regulations for each of these catagories or areas. 
Fry: Can you define what change has taken place in wildlife 

Hartzog: Yes. I m very happy you brought me back to that, because 
there is some very significant thinking here. In the con 
text of the natural areas, it is the clear intent of the 


Hartzog: Congress that the wildlife should be protected as much as 
the trees or the vegetation that s there. Therefore, it s 
not available for public sport hunting. Such control of 
wildlife population as is necessary we are working out 
through special hunting seasons with the states outside 
park boundaries; and where this doesn t work, we allow 
trapping inside the parks; and shipping; and where this 
doesn t work, we have direct reduction by ranger personnel. 
But these are not the same guide lines that need to be 
followed in recreation areas, where hunting is a completely 
compatible recreational pursuit. Public hunting is recrea 
tion. It s recreation to those who engage in it. It may 
not be for you or me, or somebody else who may be a non- 
hunter; but for a hunter, hunting is recreation. And 
recreation is what the area was set aside for, and there 
fore that s one of the activities that we are going to permit 
as compatible with all the others, you see. 

We are also working with the states in the context that 
the state will establish the bag limits and the seasons and 
cooperate with us in the encouragement of habitat and so 
forth to propagate the species. 

Fry: Now it is not clear to me whether you are talking about the 
new national recreation areas. 

Hartzog: Right, the national recreation areas. These are the lake 
shores, the riverways, the reservoir areas. . . . 


Fry: Not the Yosemite Valley. [laughter] 

Hartzog: Not Yosemite Valley; that is a natural area. One thing 

that is going to clear up a lot of things for a lot of people, 
is that we are getting a publication out now in which all of 
the areas of the system are going to be rearranged in the 
three categories. The policies are going to be rearranged 
in three categories; the regulations are going to be rear 
ranged. So that when you say, "What is your policy?" we are 
going to have to ask you, "Our policy for what?" you see. 
It is just not going to be, "This is our policy, and we have 
three or four exceptions to it down here because these are 
different kinds of areas." There is going to be our policy 
for natural areas, and our policy for historical areas, and 
our policy for recreational areas. 

Fry: Who else will be administering recreation areas? [laughter] 
I ve heard horrendous references to as many as twenty govern 
ment agencies . 

Hartzog: Well, I ve heard this; I ve never counted them. I don t 

really know precisely, but I know there are a great many of 
them. The Corps of Engineers manages recreation areas; the 
Forest Service manages them; the Fish and Wildlife Service 
manages them; the Park Service manages them. So far, we are 
managing the recreation for the Bureau of Reclamation on their 
projects. We are working with the Bureau of Land Management 
now on trying to develop a program of cooperation by which 


Hartzog: we will manage the recreation on the public domain lands 

which they manage. They in turn, will assist us in various 
aspects of our program, such as forestry and game management 
in which they are proficient. This is still evolving. It 
hasn t evolved yet. 

Fry: Are you able to comment on any difference in acquisition 

Hartzog: The acquisition policy is different too. In national re 
creation areas, we have recognized that it is an accepted 
practice that you do not have to own all the land in an area 
in order to provide optimum recreation, providing that the 
private land that is left there is utilized compatibly with 
the recreation objectives of the area. This is to say that 
it is perfectly all right for a person to have a summer home 
in a recreation area and own it, so long as he keeps it a 
summer home. But we don t want it turned into a honky tonk, 
you see. So that, where the local municipality or county 
will zone the land compatible with the recreation objectives, 
our policy in recreation areas is that we don t have to own 
all the land in fee. We will buy scenic easements; we will 
accept zoning. For those lands which we have to develop, of 
course, legally we have to own the fee, so we have to ac 
quire the fee. 

Our objective in national parks that is, national 
parks now still remains trying to acquire all of the land 


Hartzog: in the park, because this is for the preservation of an 

ecological environment. When you have unplanned interference 
with this ecological environment, you jeopardize the main 
tenance of the environment throughout the whole area. There 
fore, we have not changed the policy with respect to trying 
to acquire all the in-holdings in the national parks. In 
the historical areas, we are now evaluating this policy, and 
I think that we are going to propose to the Secretary a 
change in the policy in the historical areas, to the end that 
we are not going to have to buy all the land in historical 
areas, on the same premises that I outlined for recreation 

Fry: I guess there has been more acceptance, too, of private 
preservation agencies sometimes handling part of your 
historical monuments. 

Hartzog: Well, this has always been a part of the program. We 

haven t done too much in pushing it, but the Historic Sites 
Act of 1935 has always authorized the Secretary to cooperate 
with private and quasi-public organizations in historic 
Fry: Has there been much change in the responsibility delegated 

to the field as opposed to that held in the Washington office? 

Hartzog: That is another thing we tried to do: clarify our own think 
ing about the kind of organization we have. We have a field 
superintendent; we have a regional office, and we have a 


Hartzog: Washington office. Frequently, we get mixed up as to where 
policy is made and what procedures are applied, and a matter 
goes all the way from the field to Washington that could have 
just as easily been answered in the field, if Washington had 
established a policy to guide the field. So we have tried 
to clarify the roles of these three echelons of management. 
In doing so, we say that the Washington office is the 
policy-making arm of the Service, which it is. It s respon 
sible for procedures, responsible for leadership and pro 
gramming and budgeting, which get to the essence of how 
this program is going to operate; it s responsible for 
legislation and for the relationships with the Department 
and its other bureaus at a policy level in Washington. 

The regional office is the core of our management, 
and it is the regional director and his staff to whom we 
look for improvement in the quality of management and the 
quality of improvement of public service to the visitors 
who come to these areas. 

Fry: Is this an increase in the delegation of duties to the 
regional office? 

Hartzog: Not actually. They had the duties; it s a clarification 
of them, this is really what it boils down to. They have 
always had this responsibility. This is what they re 
supposed to have been doing, but there has been confusion 
about whether they have been doing it or not. 


Fry: Before this, then, there was more centralization than was 


Hartzog: I think so. The superintendent on the grounds is responsible 
for running the program. We want to give him as much flexi 
bility as we can, so that he can be as creative as possible, 
rather than putting him in a straight jacket, though we have 
to establish some broad guide lines out here, so that he 
knows when he is getting out of the ball park. And as long 
as he stays in the ball park, then we can recognize the 
individual ability of a person to improve in the quality 
of his performance through his own creativity and that of 
his staff. This makes for a harder job and it makes for a 
greater challenge for the person, because nobody is holding 
his hand and telling him every day what he has to do. It 
is giving him an opportunity to use his head. I think that 
it is going to work; we are encouraged by the response that 
we have had so far. Now we have a study underway in the 
regional offices to determine what kind of regional organi 
zation we should have in the Park Service. This study has 
not been finished yet. 

Fry: I was talking about this with Mr. Charles Stoddard, head 

of the Bureau of Land Management yesterday, and he said that 
they were reorganizing with more emphasis on program; he 
thought this was rather typical of a lot of reorganization 
going on these days. Would you say that some of your 


Fry: reorganization also puts more emphasis on programs up and 

down the administrative line so that the horizontal echelon 
becomes a little less important? Is that accurate? 
Hartzog: Yes. Right. 




Fry: Well, now I would like to take you back to what we started 
to talk about in relation to Congress. 

Hartzog: O.K. Well, normally what happens is that we have a National 
Park System planning organization, whose job is to think 
about what the National Park System should be in the future. 
Fry: This is within your office? 

Hartzog: This is within our office and in the regional offices. They 
go out now and take a look at "X" area, and their preliminary 
reconnaisance indicates that it is of park quality and worthy 
of acquisition. So they put it on a study list. This 
study list comes to me, and if I agree I approve it. This 
constitutes a study project. They then go out and make what 
we call a professional study report. 

Now heretofore it has been our practice that when this 
professional study report was made, it went to the Secretary s 
Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites and Buildings. 
If they agreed with it, it went to the Secretary with a recom 
mendation. He issued that as a departmental report, and that 
became the report, you see. 

We ve changed that; we now issue that professional 
study report as a professional study report. We analyze the 
resource, what its potentialities are, what the alternatives 


Hartzog: might be for its preservation. Then we make that public 

and invite the public to comment on it. If the interest is 
sufficient, we go into the community and meet with the 
people and talk with them about it. 

On the basis of all these comments, we then prepare a 
final report, which goes to the Advisory Board, and from the 
Advisory Board, with its recommendation, to the Secretary. 
If he agrees, he approves it. This then becomes the final 
study report. 

Usually at this point, or maybe a little before depend 
ing on how much public acceptance there may be for it a bill 
or several bills are introduced into Congress. If you ve 
got an area with wide public acceptance, you are just that 
much ahead, because then the local Congressman and the local 
delegation are usually pushing it. 

If you have a bill for which there is a lot of local 
opposition, then the people who are interested have to take 
the burden of trying to work out these problems with the 
local people to the point where you do get the local Con 
gressman interested. Seldom, if ever, do you succeed in any 
legislation which the local Congressman opposes. If he is 
opposed, you are not going very far with a piece of legis 
lation as a general rule. So the beginning of the legislative 
process is to try to get the local Congressman a proposition 
which he can support. And also your two Senators if your 


Hartzog: two Senators are opposed, conversely, you are not going 

Of course, you can understand and this is inherent 
in our system of government, it was intended to be this 
way the local Congressman has a smaller constituency than 
the two Senators, so that people from all over the state 
are writing to the Senators. You may have intense opposition 
in a little pocket down here in this district, but in their 
total picture, it may not be too meaningful. However, to the 
Congressman it may be quite sensitive, and therefore you 
sometimes have a bill move for you in the Senate when it 
doesn t move for you in the House because you still have a 
local problem in this district that you have to work out. 

We find that it is very helpful if the people who are 
interested in the proposal form a local organization and use 
this as a forum for providing information and working with 
the people informing them of what is in it. Now a great 
deal has been accomplished, 1 think, in this change of 
procedure alone. 

This grew out of my own experience when I was in 
Missouri, because when I was there in addition to my job 
in St. Louis I was the coordinator for all Park Service 
activities in the state of Missouri. One of my jobs was 
the proposed Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and we had 
issued a report which said, "This is going to be it, and 
it is going to be a National Monument." Well, we ran 


Hartzog: into a real storm of opposition. It took a couple of years 
to get this thing smoothed out, cleared away, and the local 
Congressman really interested. One of the Congressmen we 
never did persuade, and therefore, when the area was finally 
established, we had to leave out the counties that were in 
his district in order to get it established. 

1 was convinced from that experience that many people 
could have been persuaded to have gone along with this pro 
posal, had they understood what it was about in the first 
place and had had an opportunity to participate in the 
making of the proposal. So this is why we have changed this 
procedure with the approval of the Secretary to issue a 
preliminary report, and it is working very well. 
Fry: Quite frankly, there is one resource agency that has 

developed a very complicated and effective system, through 
its regional offices, of developing a great deal of public 
support when it needs it for a measure going through Con 
gress. Is this what the parks can do under the new system? 

Hartzog: Well, one of the advantages, I think, of this preliminary 
report is that before a hard position is taken by the op 
position, as well as by the proponents, they have an oppor 
tunity to sit down and explore what the values are and what 
the alternatives are for dealing with it. 


Redwood Park Example 

Hartzog: I think that the redwoods, for example, are a perfect 

illustration of what 1 am talking about. This was the first 
professional report that we issued on this basis, and when 
we issued it, as you know, there was an immediate storm of 
reaction. There were an awful lot of people, including some 
of the major groups, who said no national park was needed. 
Fry: You mean the major lumber groups? 

Hartzog: Yes. And, well, not only that, but some of the Chambers 

of Commerce and others were against it. 

Fry: You had the Save the Redwoods League as an example of one 
of these local groups to work through, in the community? 

Hartzog: No, there was no local group up there in that country at 
that particular time that I was aware of. The Redwoods 
League had somebody up there, but he was an individual and 
not a group. 

I think the Sierra Club had some people up there or an 
individual up there; at least, that is what I have heard. 
I don t know it for a fact. But, so far as I know, there 
was no park support organization up there. In addition to 
which, as I understand, there were several of the Chambers 
of Commerce who were opposed to a national park. 

The point is that there was no consensus that there 
was a need for a national park when that report came out. 
Now, we gave them I think ninety days to make comments, 


Hartzog: and that time has long since expired. But in the meantime, 
we have been continuing to receive comments and evaluate 
them. So far as I know now, the industry has finally said 
a national park is a desirable thing. The American Forestry 
Association has said a national park is a desirable thing. 
Every responsible organization that I am aware of maybe I ve 
left out some that I don t know about but all of them that 
I know of that reacted violently contrary to it at the outset 
have now accepted the fact that a national park is a desirable 
thing. So this is what I am talking about as the benefit of 
this professional report being out, and giving the people 
an opportunity to talk about it, and to contribute to the 
thought process in making a final report. 

Now, I will admit that there are an awful lot of dif 
ferences over the details of what this national park ought 
to be, but the interesting thing is that the central issue 
is whether there should be a national park, and on this now, 
as far as I know, now there is unanimity. Now you can pro 
ceed to fill out the details, and I am sure that you are 
going to fight over the details. You are never going to have 
anything that goes through with everybody in support of it. 
I don t believe that you can achieve this, but I do think 
that this professional report has achieved remarkable success, 
that is, that all of the organizations are now in agreement 
that there should be a national park. 


Committees and Congressmen 

Fry: Yes. 

In your work with Congress, do you work primarily 
just with the House Interior and Insular Committee, and the 
Senate Interior and Insular Committee and subcommittees? 

Hartzog: Right. And then of course, two appropriation committees for 
the implementation of the program. This involves briefing, 
of course, talking with the local delegations. It involves 
visiting with the members of the subcommittee; it involves 
testifying and having your maps there. 

I think the central thing that I learned and believe 
me, I am still a novice in this business of legislative 
process is the fact that if you do your homework, when 
you get to the hearing you re usually in pretty good shape. 
If you haven t done your homework, you are oftentimes in 
Fry: How do you have your staff organized for this? 

Hartzog: Well, this is one of the activities that we have totally 

reorganized in the Park Service, our legislative organization. 
So today when a legislative proposal goes to the Hill, and we 
go up to testify, we generally have the homework done. We 
have the professional man who made the study; we have the land 
man who set the values, and either I am there, or I have an 
assistant director who is there, who can resolve and answer 
the policy questions that are involved on it. 


Fry: Would you like to mention now some of the main Congressmen 

who are receptive in helping park legislation? 

Hartzog: Well, I think we have a wide range of Congressmen and Sena 
tors who are interested and effective in park legislation. 
I don t think it was any I think that it was an absolute fact 
when the President remarked that the 88th Congress would go 
down in history as the "conservation Congress." As we talked 
about it earlier, the question of parks has become highly 
popular. I was very much amused yesterday at the Wilderness 
Conference of the Sierra Club I don t know whether you heard 
it or not when one of these speakers said that he thought 
that the pork barrel was going to become now the park barrel. 
That is, everybody wants a park in his district. I think that 
this has a lot more truth to it than we are really aware of at 
the moment, because there is a tremendous amount of support 
for parks in the Congress. 

Of course, the people who are most directly involved are 
the Congressmen and the two Senators who have a particular 
park under consideration at the moment, and then also your 
subcommittee. And our subcommittee is chaired by Ralph Rivers 
of Alaska, and the ranking majority member on it is Wayne 
Aspinall, ex-officio member of the subcommittee and the chair 
man of the full committee. The ranking minority member is 
John Saylor of Pennsylvania. You can just go right down the 
aisle on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, and every one 


Hartzog: of them are for parks. 
Fry: They are. 

Hartzog: Yes, they really are. I don t know any of them that you 

can t say is a real friend of the parks on that subcommittee. 

Now in our subcommittee in the Senate, the chairman is 
Senator A. H. Bible. The chairman of the full committee is 
Senator H. M. Jackson. We have tremendous support out of 
this committee. There are times of course, when Senator 
M. L. Simpson raises some questions about some of our poli 
cies. Senator B. E. Jordan of Idaho has raised some ques 
tions about some of them. I think the questions that they 

have raised have considerable merit, and I think that we 
have met some of the questions that have been in their minds. 
I know that Senator Simpson has had a long history of op 
position to the program in the Grand Teton National Park and 
to some of the practices and policies in Yellowstone Na 
tional Park. But I have found him to be extremely helpful 
in our park program, extremely helpful. And deeply inter 
ested. I have indeed, and he has taken some very strong 
positions on some of our areas, particularly in the East, 
in pushing and supporting them. 

Fry: Are you saying that this is a change in him? 
Hartzog: I don t know whether it is a change in him, because I 

never knew him before; I am just telling you what the facts 
are as I find them. As a matter of fact, the Great Falls 


Hartzog: area there in Washington is an area in which any number of 
times he has told me he is deeply interested in. I think 
that he is becoming convinced, as are a great many people, 
of the tremendous need for parks in the East. I think this 
is really about where you may find the cleavage. The only 
experience that I had with him that was different than this 
was involving the hearing on the Oregon Dunes. You see, this 
is a Western area, and he was a little bit sharp in his com 
ments about us there, so this could be maybe an explanation 
for it. 1 don t know what the explanation is, but this is 
the way we find him. 
Fry: Tell us about Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico. 

Hartzog: Well, he is the great statesman, and the great stalwart of 
all of this conservation, a great man in the Congress on 
our committee. Sure, you can t overlook him. This is the 
hazard of naming names in any of this business. You can t 
name them all, and you overlook somebody and then the ques 
tion arises, "Well, why did you overlook him?" Well, you 
overlooked him because you forgot him at the moment. "But 
Senator H. M. Jackson, Senator C. P. Anderson, Lee Metcalf, 
Senator F. F. Church, Ted Moss of Utah, you name any of 
them, they are there. 
Fry: Am I keeping you past your deadline? It s twenty til five. 

Hartzog: No. 



Fry: I want to ask you about the financial picture of the parks. 
You have just started the automobile admissions sticker for 
the Land and Water Fund.* Perhaps you can start right at the 
beginning of your career in Washington and bring us up to date 
on appropriations. 

Hartzog: Well, I think parks are, of course, better financed now than 
they have ever been. I think this, that a great deal of the 
credit for this is due to Connie Wirth and the Mission 66 
Program, the long range plan of the National Parks in which 
he dramatized the lack of maintenance and so forth. But I 
think with the tremendous increase in visitation too, that 
we are faced with the continuing problem that you are always 
going to have, the gap between what would be ideally avail 
able and what we have. For instance, right here in Muir 
Woods this trail ought to be paved all the way down, parti 
cularly through those wet soggy portions as we were walking 
down there, you see? I can imagine that, they are wet and 
soggy right now and that they re a dust pile in the summer 
time. So you are always going to have that gap. 

On the other hand, I think that the land acquisition 
facet of our program is now in much better shape, with the 

*cf. New York Times , re: Senate passage of $2 billion, 
10-year Land and Water Conservation Fund, September 4, 1964, 
p. 31, col. 1. Also re: Presidential order expected to set 
fees, auto stickers, January 24, 1965, p. 64, col. 1. 


Hartzog: Land and Water Conservation Fund, than it has ever been. 

This has been the hardest money that we have ever tried to 
get from the Congress: funds for land acquisition. Now with 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund there is a regular sys- 
temized funding for the purchase of land, and the Congress at 
its will can appropriate from it. So I think our land ac 
quisition picture looks much better than it has in years. 

I think that our physical development program is still 
going to be in good shape. I don t think it s ever going to 
reach the Utopian state that I d like to see it, in order to 
provide everything that I would like to have when I want it. 
But I am encouraged by what s happening. Our budget that was 
passed by the House this year was about $140,000,000, which 
represents a rather significant increase over last year. 
Fry: Do you think that maintenance is the most difficult area to 
get appropriations for now? 

Hartzog: I think maintenance and management are the most difficult. 
You can dramatize a construction need for a camp ground, 
but it is awfully hard to dramatize the fact that you need 
somebody to pick up the trash that is in the campground, 
until it gets real dirty. But when it gets real dirty, then 
you have other kinds of problems besides just the problem of 
trying to get the money to pick up the trash. Then you have 
all the public relations implications of the dissatisfied 
camper because his wife went in the bathhouse and it was 


Hartzog: dirty or he went in and it was dirty or the children got 
dirty and this kind of stuff. So the maintenance side of 
it and the management side, the funding of these seasonal 
people, is tough money to get. Yes, it is. 
Fry: The parks really have a very broad constituency. 

Hartzog: Yes, they do. 

Fry: This shows up in some of the Congressional hearings, and 

I wonder if you could just evaluate for me the feedback that 
you get in congressional hearings on park management and 
so forth. 

Hartzog: Well, the interesting thing to me is that you have great 

constituency and you have a great deal of interesting sup 
port, but it usually reflects itself in getting the new area. 
It generally doesn t reflect itself in spilling over to the 
Appropriations Committee to follow through in getting the 
money for the management of the area, unless you have a real 
problem, such as you had there at Point Reyes with no en 
trance road. When these people descended all over the private 
land owners, then we really got some support, you see? But 
until you get a dramatic situation like that, they just kind 
of forget it after they get the park. 

But that is just when the real hard work actually begins. 
That was what the Undersecretary of Interior was talking 
about yesterday with the Wilderness Act: the getting of the 
legislation is the main tent; the implementing of it is the 


Hartzog: kitchen tent, and this is where the real hot and dirty work 

is. And the getting of this money to run these programs from 
the Appropriations Committee is real tough work. 
Fry: How do you use the conservation organizations in this or in 
any kind of legislation? Is it easy to send out a call for 

Hartzog: No, it isn t, because you see by law we are prohibited from 

lobbying for money, for programs and this kind of thing. But 
the conservationists are certainly not prohibited from support 
ing us. And I think that a great deal could be done by them 
which they are not now doing in this area of improving the 
quality of the management and maintenance of these parks. 
They are dissatisfied with some of the trails; well, the best 
way that I know to remedy that is in the emphasis in their 
own organization and their own support of our budget requests. 
Fry: I have the mental picture of ex-park officials and people 
who have been very close to parks being in high positions 
within these organizations, so that communication shouldn t 
be too difficult. 

Hartzog: No. It s not. It is not too difficult getting it out; the 
problem that you have is in getting them to go personally 
and testify before the congressional committee. A lot of 
them are content to write a letter, and writing a letter is 
fine it makes a record but I still believe that there is 
nothing that beats personal contact, because as you sit there 


Hartzog: in front of that committee and they have an opportunity to 
ask you questions and evaluate what you are saying to them, 
they can get a feel for whether this is really something or 
whether you are just writing a letter because some person 
said for you to write a letter. Therefore, I don t think 
that just pounding out a letter is any substitute for asking 
the committee for an opportunity to go sit down and talk 
with them about it. 

Fry: I guess there are problems with finances there too that come 
up, transportation from the West to Washington, for instance. 

Hartzog: Yes, I think this is part of it. Conservationists normally 

don t have the same kind of money to keep people in Washington 
for this purpose as trade organizations do. 

Fry: Because this is going to be deposited as a manuscript in 
Bancroft Library, I would like to ask you if you have any 
observations to make particularly relevant to the manage 
ment of California national parks. 

Hartzog: No, I don t. I am going to try and spend some time out 

here in these parks this summer just for that same purpose. 
I haven t spent any time in them yet. I just went to Sequoia 
National Park and stayed two days, and I was a week in 
Yosemite. We have a master plan coming up on Sequoia, and 
this is what I want to get into. 



Fry: My question on concessions is my last--because I don t want 
to detain you and talk about this all night. What have you 
seen in changes in the relation between the concessioners 
and the federal government, and what changes in their role 
in park management? 

Hartzog: Well, of course, the changes have been dramatic. The con 
cessions started off primarily catering to a clientele that 
was very small, that arrived by railroad and wanted a very 
deluxe type of service, and stayed many days and then left. 

Today it s a highly mobile population, it wants one 
night s lodging and it wants a very inexpensive meal; it 
probably will be satisfied with a soda fountain, with 
sandwiches youngsters want hamburgers. It s a wholly 
different kind of travel. Some of the concessioners 
have not responded to this change as rapidly as I believe 
the need for it exists. As a result, some of them have 
sold their properties, such as the Great Northern in 

Congress is very much concerned about the way we 
are managing concessions. As you know, they ve had hear 
ings on this. We have now put the concessions on a per 
centage of gross receipts. I think there s a keener appre 
ciation of the necessity of good management on the side of 
both the concessioners and us the government, I mean-- 


Hartzog: so that our management is being scrutinized more closely 
and therefore it s got to be better management. 

The concessioners are an extremely vital part of a 
successful park operation. I ve said to them that they re 
dynamic and creative partners in providing the proper 
service for the visitors to the visitors parks because 
these are the taxpayers parks. I believe that we have a 
very good relationship with the concessioners. I think 
the informal relationships that have existed in the past 
have tended to become more formalized. I think there s 
a greater emphasis on what the contract says and what the 
contract requires. This can be good and it can be bad. 
If it s allowed to become petty and acrimonious, it can 
be bad. It s good if it helps both us and the concession 
to have a better understanding of what is needed and who s 
going to do it, in terms of what service and what quality 
of service. 
Fry: What s happened in the dilemma of the concessioner who 

can operate only part of the year, and yet has to make his 
margin of profit? 

Hartzog: This is very difficult. It s unlike a public utility in 
which you can say to the public, "You ve got to use this 
one because this is the only one." In the national parks, 
you may still say, "This is the only concession." But 
they don t have to go there. And furthermore if the 
weather s bad they usually won t go there. 


Hartzog: So it puts him in a highly speculative kind of business, 
so he has some very special kinds of problems. I think 
that we re getting some better understanding of what these 
problems are. And I think that when the Interior Committee 
starts hearings on this concession bill that this picture 
is going to become a great deal clearer than it is right 
now. Because right now, it s been confused by the General 
Accounting Office and by the Appropriations Committee and 
by the Government Operations Committee. We just really are 
in a confused policy state right now. This is why the bill 
has been introduced: to put into statutory form the 
existing concession policies. 

Fry: I m not current on this. Has there been more of a trend 
toward participation by the federal government? This 
could take the form of more instances of federal ownership 
of the physical plant of a concession, or outright. . . . 

Hartzog: No, no, I wouldn t say there s been any trend. We ve had 
to go in in some places, such as Isle Royale, and build 
the buildings because there s just no way for private 
enterprise to do it. But we remain very firmly fixed to 
the policy that these facilities should be provided and 
operated by private capital. I think this is the most 
effective way of getting it done. 
Fry: What about subsidies then, when there are difficulties? 

Hartzog: One of the things that s going to be involved, it seems to 


Hartzog: me (and this is one of the bills that s pending in the 

Congress) is we re going to have to provide some kind of 
financial guarantee of the concession loans, just as FHA 
had to finally step in and do this in house financing because 
it just got to the point where a property owner couldn t buy 
a house. So FHA moved in and said, "We ll guarantee X per 
cent of this loan." This therefore gave the prospective 
homeowner a greater equity, down-payment, so to speak. Be 
cause he not only had his own money, but in addition the 
government is guaranteeing that much more. So then the lender 
could lend him that much more. I think that we re headed in 
this direction in concessions. We ve got to, it seems to me, 
if you re going to insure the concessioner an adequate supply 
of risk capital as well as a reasonable rate of interest at 
which he can get this risk capital. Because it j a specula 
tive business there just isn t that much profit in it. It s 
profitable; I m not saying they are not profitable some of 
these concessions make very good money. But it also has a 
highly risky factor involved too. And operating under the 
restrictions of a national park, not being able to go to the 
extremes that they could go to if they were outside in order 
to maximize the profit within the short range, I think we ve 
got to move in some other directions to ease this financial 
Fry: Has there been any change in length of contract? 


Hartzog: Yes. The Congress recently authorized up to thirty years 

instead of the traditional twenty years. But we only have, 
I think, two of these thirty-year contracts. The term is not 
the important thing. The thing the banker wants back is his 
money, you see. He isn t interested in how long you keep 
it; he s interested in whether he gets it back. So if he 
isn t satisfied that he s going to get his money back, it 
doesn t make any difference if he s got a fifty-year con 
tract. What he wants is his money back with interest. He s 
in the banking business. 
Fry: I was thinking a longer-term contract might allow them to 

invest their own capital with a little more feeling of security. 

Hartzog: My gosh, it does. But if they don t have it in the first 

place and I don t know any of them that have enough capital 
to take it right out of their pockets and invest it they 
usually have to borrow it. 
Fry: When you were working on concessions way back in 1950, were 

you involved in that study that went on under Secretary Krug? 

Hartzog: Yes. 

Fry: But then you didn t have anything to do with the instituting 
of any results of that study. 

Hartzog: No. I was just working there. 

Fry: Could you just off-the-cuff give me some of the major dif 
ferences of problems about concessions then and now? 

Hartzog: Then of course, the question was whether the concessioner 
actually even had a possessionary interest or any right to 


Hartzog: be compensated for the improvements which he d made on 

government property. This is really the thing that precipi 
tated the whole dialogue. Then we got involved in the question 
of how much return should a concessioner get, should he be on a 
percentage of net profit? Should there be some limitation on 
the amount of profits that he should make? Well, this is a 
whole other day. [laughter] 

Fry: It is getting late for you, and while I d like to talk to 
you about the Secretaries of Interior, I guess we really 
couldn t do them justice. Thank you for giving your after 
noon for an interview. 

Hartzog: This has been a pleasure, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to sit down and discuss these things with you. Thank you. 


This Land 

By Harold CUIiam 

TTHE MAN with the most 
A powerful grip In Wash 
ington, D.C., is muscular, 
cigar-chomping George B. 
Hartzog Jr., seventh direc 
tor of the National Park 
Service and proponent of a 
controversial new national 
park policy. 

His hearty handclasp, 
steely enough to make a 
professional wrestler 
wince, is a natural concom 
itant of a personality that 
radiates energy as a Yel 
lowstone geyser gives off 

Hartzog bears not the 
slightest resemblance to 
the stereotype of the uni 
formed park ranger whose 
chief interest is rocks and 
wildlife. This is no John 
Muir of the mountains but 
a gregarious extrovert who 
is more often to be found in 
offices and committee 
rooms than in the wilder 
ness although he knows 
his way around in the 
woods and is an inveterate 

If Hartzog s park philoso 
phy is different from that 
of some of his predeces 
sors, right or wrong, the 
reasons are understand 
able. These are different 
times with different park 
problems, and he is a dif 
ferent breed of man. 

Late Camper 

Hartzog still speaks with 
a trace of the inflections of 
South Carolina, where he 
was born. He never saw a 
national park until he was 
in the Army in World War 
II, stationed at Fort Lewis. 
Washington, and visited 
Mount Rainier on a week 
end pass. 

There he enjoyed watch 
ing and joining families 
playing in the snow. 

"I felt then and I feel 
now," he said on a recent 
visit to San Francisco. 
"that this is what parks 
are for people having 
themselves a lot of fun in 
the outdoors. 

"I m not afi.-iid that peo 
ple will ruin the parks, if 
we make proper provision 
for them. We have to dis 
perse the facilities and en 
courage visitors to spread 
out. We re trying to pro 
vide more campgrounds 
and minimum facilities, 
like youth hostels, where 
young people can throw a 
sleeping bag on the flo-ir " 

Krvn Miti MH 

It pu>l>M> ltl Iv ii.vr* 
vu v. tic aiklrJ. 1 1 Imut at 
tendance in many areas 

Tarks Are for People 
To Have Fun In 


and require reservations 
not only for housing but for 
admittance through the 
park gates. 

"The real enemies of the 
national parks arc nor peo 
ple but automobiles." Hart 
zog said. Cars foul up the 
environment in the parks 
just like they do anywhere 
else. They take over too 
many acres of natural 
areas for parking, and 
they re even creating a 
smog problem in Yoscmite. 

"That s why we re look 
ing for ways of limiting the 
impact of cars. There s a 
lot of pressure to widen 
roads in the parks and 
build more of them, but in 
stead we re thinking about 
having one-way roads, get 
ting people on through 
while they re having a re 
creational driving experi 

The road in the Great 
Smokies might be one such 
route, he suggested, or pos- 
s i b 1 y the Tioga road 
through Yosemite. 

"And we re looking into 
other ways of getting peo 
ple in and out of the parks 
monorail, funiculars, 
other kinds of trains." 

Land Costs 

Hartzog is an attorney by 
prolession and began his 
park career in the National 
Park Service solicitor s of 
fice. Secretary of the Inte 
rior Stewart Udall appoint 
ed him to the top job in 
1963. on the retirement of 
Director Conrad L. Wirth. 

One of Hartzog s major 
headaches is the escalation 
of land costs in areas 





where parks are proposed. 
At Point Reyes National 
Seashore, for example, 
prices have skyrocketed to 
incredible heights. The $19 
million authorized to pur 
chase the land has bought 
less than half of the desig 
nated area, and prices for 
the rest have gone up so 
far that another $40 million 
or so would be required to 
complete the purchase 
an amount that a 
hiidEcf-T "^"-! Congress 
has so far been unwilling to 

As an alternative. Hart 
zog proposed that the re 
maining acreage be pur 
chased and part of the pur 
chase price be recovered 
by leasing some of the 
lands to private owners 
who would contract to put 
in controlled developments 
golf courses, recreation 
facilities, and limited resi 
dential buildings. 

The proposal raised the 
hackles of conservationists 
who oppose such drastic 
departure from traditional 
national park principles, 
but so far no working alter 
native has emerged. 

If Hartzog sometimes 
seems to place less empha 
sis on preservation of sce 
nery and more emphasis 
on recreation and develop 
ment than some conserva- 
tionists would wish, he 
may claim ample prece 

Of the six previous Na 
tional Park Service Direc 
tors, Hartzog in some re 
spects most closely resem 
bles the first the legend 
ary Steven T. Mather, a 
native Californian and en 
ergetic businessman who 
inaugurated the job in 1917 
and led his associates a 
gruelling pace day and 
night. Mather was full of 
ideas for recreation facili 
ties in the parks, including 
swimming pools and golf 
courses. However, he was 
too busy establishing the 
park service and acquiring 
major park lands to put 
most of these idea* to 

Like his illustrious prede 
cessor, Hartzog is on the 
move continually, full of 
nervous energy, and by 
shortly after five o clock on 
most mornings is out hik 
ing around a golf course 
near his home in Arlington, 
Virginia, mulling over the 
ideas that may become 
part of his over-all pro 
gram, entitled, ambitious 
ly, "Parkscape USA." 

^^ : ^^^r ^^m 

-ft ^""""""\W --rf-" 5 *- 

. v^ VJ-TW^. 

. . - 


S.F. Sunday Examiner and Chronicle 

15 October 1967 



October 1C, 1963 

Mr. Secretary, Mr. Director, Mr. Mew Director, Mr. llev Associate 
Director and friends. 

I didn t expect to toake a speech, so I only have some notes. I think 
I had a little part in getting Ceorpe [llartzog] where he is and I would like 
to tell you .a story about a "Shangri-La" that was held after I pave Director 
Wirth a year s notice of ny retirement plans. 

These changes are of greatest importance to conservationists and no 
doubt many wonder about the process of selection which fills such critical 
positions and the conditions surrounding the Job, In viev of the very 
unfortunate circumstances which developed the day prior tc t..<; annoimcrr uv. 
of Director Wirth s retirement, I think that these facts shcuiJ be made 

The highest Civil Service job classification is Grade 15. Above this 
are what are known as Superprades 16, 17 and 18. These arc also Known .--? 
Excepted Positions - in other words, appointments to them can be ma<?e "iui!- 
out Civil Service status and tenure is subject to the will perha : -;. ;...: 
the Whim of the appointing officer. By nnd larp,e the jobs ere considered ;..i 
Just rewards for the politically faithful. Even when career 
employees are selected for these super.^rades, it can be assured that their 
political attitudes have been checked :>nt! found at least not objectionable. 

In my own case when I had been told, in 1955, that I had been selected 
for promotion to Associate Director (Trade 17), and warned tc keep the 
matter completely secret, I var, start! ;d a few days later to -et a call 


from the Republican County Chairman notifying me that he had been informed 
of the proposed appointment and instructed to send in a report. of nay political 
affiliations. As I had been in Civil Service for some UO years and had always 
registered as in Independent, I do not know what the report contained, but at 
least the c.ppolntment indicated I was acceptable. 

In these circumstances, it should be kept in mind that there are some 
things to which the Secretary of the Interior must give consideration when 
he makes his appointments to these top positions in the Park Service. I 
doubt if he could afford to Ignorv entirely the political aspects of the 
situation, no matter how devoted he was to keeping career personnel in con 
trol of the Bureau. In this case, we can all be deeply thankful that he 
gave the jobs to two National Park Service employees Judged by a Jury of 
their peers to be capable of handling the Jobs. 

Let me explain this last sentence. In January 1961, I informed 
Mr. Wirth that it was my intention to retire the following January. This 
left him with the problem of finding a qualified successor in whom he could 
have complete confidence, and who would be acceptable to the Secretary. A 
short time later he conferred on the matter with people in the Secretary s 
Office. He was told that the Secretary was fully inclined to go along with 
a career appointment. However, it was emphasized that the new Associate 
Director should be selected with the end in view that he would most likely 
be the next Director and should be young enough to have up to 20 years of 
active service ahead of him. 

In order to get a list of names which could be sent to the Secretary, * 
the Director selected a Committee of Park Service veterans to meet with him 
and study the situation. The members of the Committee were Thomas C. Vint, 


Chief Design and Construction, and whose retirement had already been approved 
after kO years of service; R. P. Lee, Regional Director in Philadelphia; 
John Preston, Superintendent of Yosemite National Park and myself. In order 
to enable us to work undisturbed and awuy from telephones, we held a two-day 
session with Mr. Wirth in Annapolis, Maryland. If I remember correctly, 
this was in May 1961. 

Keeping in mind the specification set by the Secretary and other guide 
lines we felt were necessary and appropriate, and after checking personnel 
records again and again, we agreed on a list of 7 names. A number of highly 
qualified people in the Service were passed over because they had reached an 
age where they could not succeed the present Director and still have a number 
of active years ahead of them. 

The consensus of the Committee was that Mr. Hartzog should be #1 on the 
list. Mr. Stratton was also well up near the top. Of course, we did not 
consider the names of anyone outside the Service. I feel very strongly that 
this should never be done. 

Shortly before I retired, Dr. Wirth asked me to go over the list again 
and let him have my latest thoughts on the subject. I reported that I still 
thought the recommendations were sound; that J was firmly convinced that 
Mr. qartzog should be number one. 

There would be no particular point to this story were it not for the 
announcement in the New York Times of October 17th of Director Wirth s retire 
ment and the appointment of Mr. George Hartzog to the resulting vacancy. The 
official announcement of these changes vac to have been made by Secretary Udall 
at .the National Park Service Conference in Yosemite National Park on Friday, 
the 18th. 

The story, quoted in considerable cetail from a supposedly within the 
family speech given by Assistant Secretary John Carver at toe opening session 


of the Conference, .led the reader to believe Dri Wlrth was being precipitously 
forced out and that Mr. Hartzog was being given the Job because he would be 
more cooperative with the Secretary s Office. This was the most demoralizing 
thing that has happened to the National Park Service since it was established 
in 1916. Only.. a very few of the conferees knew of the retirement and 

suddenly they were confronted with a tale which indicated their beloved and 
highly respected Director was being forced out under rather discreditable 
circumstances. Further, that his successor, Judged by conditions as stated 
in the report, could be suspected of being a conniving party to a deal behind 
the Director s back to get the job for himself. 

Mr. Udall has emphatically denied all the Implications of the story 
and confirmed that Dr.. Wlrth had given him 9 months advance notice of his 
retirement. I hope that all will realize that Mr. George Hartzog fully 
earned his try at the Directorship and that, as I said before, he was judged 
by a Jury of experienced and informed associates in the Service and found 
worthy and qualified for that position. That both he and Mr. Stratton, the 
new Associate Director, are, I have reasons to believe, good Democrats, is 
beside the point. Personally, I am sure that both will demonstrate they are 
fully capable to meet the crushing responsibilities of leading the National 
Park Service, but they can use a lot of help and cooperation. 

So George and Clark- -I m going to watch your careers with great 
Interest, because I think you have what it takes. 

I think the Secretary has done a wonderful thing in making these 
appointments and I believe what has happened here today is a tremendous 
compliment to the National Park Service. I don t think any Secretary 
ever will have too much trouble with such appointments if the Park Service 
continues to produce men of the quality necessary to the duty. 


That i<5 the responsibility of all of you fellows I m over the hump now 
but you be sure that you do your vork so that when vacancies occur the 
Secretary will have career employees that he can put into these positions. 

Wow, Rr, Secretary, after I retired after U6 years, 7 months with the 
Department of the Interior, something of which I am exceedingly proud, I want 
to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the appointments you have made 

here today. I certainly congratulate you in overriding perhaps some pressures 

that have been upon you otherwise to make these appointments. 

As I leave this stand let s get up and let the Secretary know really 
know how we feel! Thank you. 




Thank you very much for this opportunity to report to you today 
on the management of the National Park Service. It is always an 
honor and a privilege to appear before you. He in the National 
Park Service know how tirelessly this Committee has worked to 
advance the conservation of our natural and cultural heritage 
and to meet the increasing and perplexing challenges of this 
Nation s park and recreation needs. We know how dedicated you 
are as individual members, and we are deeply grateful to you, 
Mr. Chairman, and to each member of the Committee, for your 
interest, counsel, and assistance. 

We all look forward with pleasure to working with each of you 
in this second session of the 90th Congress. We stand ready to 
serve you in every way we can. 

For the past four years, it has been a great personal satisfaction 
to report on the progress we have made in carrying out the growing 
responsibilities you have given to us. It has also been a great 
source of strength to me, and to all of my colleagues, to know 
that we could share with you the burden of our problems and to 
know that when we did so we would have your careful attention 
and thoughtful understanding. 

It Is my belief that the National Park Service has reached a time 
in its history which requires thoughtful decisions on enormously 
complex park problems, and bold innovation in the implementation 
of these decisions. 


In my statement to this Committee last year, Mr. Chairman, I 
presented our program designed to take a long and searching look 
at the quality of the environment of our National Park System and 
to develop feasible objectives for the National Park Service to 
contribute to a new conservation ethic in this country. 

We call this program PARKSCAPE U.S.A., because it identifies our 
concern with the landscapes, seascapes, and cityscapes which make 
up our natural and cultural inheritance. 


All of us are acutely aware of the unrelenting pressures of 
civilization whose all-pervasive influence seems likely to render 
all of our resources into "useful" objects for a Materialistic 

The National Parks are increasingly popular as places of escape, 
which provide an inspirational alternative to the urban sprawl. 
The astounding mobility of our citizens has brought the most 
remote corners of this continent within reach of millions. 

The major destination points for this migration usually in the 
summerare the well-known National Parks, which are now asked 
to serve a volume of visitors beyond our comprehension as 
recently as the years immediately following World War II, and 
to withstand modern recreational activities of many kinds. 

It may well be that the general public has lost sight of, or 
perhaps never fully understood, that a significant difference 
exists between National Parks and other public lands offering 
outdoor recreational opportunities. 

With explosive increases in visitation, it is imperative that 
park use be tempered by genuine understanding and appreciation 
of park resources, if their real values are to be conserved. 
And more important still, that sense of values that ecological 
conscience that is at the heart of what we call PABKSCAPE is 
essential to the achievement and maintenance of a truly livable 
environment for mankind Itself. 

We feel that we must play a significant role in developing in 
the public a sense of oneness with the environment, if the 
PARKSCAPE program is to be of genuine service to the nation 
and its parklands. We have expanded and intensified our efforts 
in that direction in several key ways. 

One of our most important actions last year was the appointment 
of Dr. A. Starker Leopold as Chief Scientist of the National Park 
Service. Dr. Leopold, who will continue in his position as 
Assistant to the Chancellor and Director of the Museum of 
Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, is a world famous 
ecologist who has recently served as Chairman of Secretary Udall s 
Advisory Committee on Wildlife Management in the National Parks. 


Under Dr. Leopold s leadership, our Office of Natural Science 
Studies will provide much of the basic knowledge necessary to 
maintain or restore the ecological integrity of our National 
Parks . 

A national understanding of the values of our natural and 
historic heritage is essential to the successful conservation 
of the National Park System,. We have pledged to communicate 
these values, and to this end, during 1967, we consolidated 
our interpretive and information programs under an Assistant 
Director for Interpretation. 

Within the parks, an improved Interpretive program will be 
accomplished by a reorientation in our approach to interpretation. 
The temptation is to Interpret to communicate with the visitor- 
only in terms of the colorful and exciting parts of each park s 
story; or, at best, in terms of the park story alone. In doing 
so, we sometimes fail to bring to the visitor a sense of the 
broader picture the complex and vulnerable world of living and 
inanimate things of which man is so influential a part. 

Through training and through publications, exhibits, and audio* 
visual productions that constitute an integral part of park 
interpretation, the new office will play a key role in presenting 
the message of environmental unity. 

By allied efforts with schools, conservation organizations and 
others we will help make available to school children across the 
Nation, through the existing educational structure, a fully 
integrated program to foster environmental perception. The 
initial force of these efforts will be directed at the Nation s 
congested urban areas; and this is just one of many ways in 
which we hope to enlarge the horizons of the millions of city 
dwellers who now have so pitifully few opportunities to savor 
the expansion of the mind tnd spirit that comes, not from LSD, 
but from the fresh breath of woodlands and tangible reminders 
of the people and events that shaped America. 


Millions of Americans who never have and perhaps never will- 
set foot In wilderness, nor thrill at the sight of true vildness, 
take genuine pleasure and receive a spiritual lift from knowledge 


of the existence of unspoiled wlldlands. More millions can 
and shallknow that pleasure. And their children, and their 
children s children, deserve the assurance that the National 
Parks remain the gold standard on which the currency of such 
pleasures is based. 

There is a very real danger, however, that we may destroy the 
wildness by trying to take every visitor to its heart. But if 
parks are for people and, indeed, they arewhat are the 
alternatives to the steady extension of visitor use facilities 
in the parks? 

Last fall, I appointed a blue-ribbon cossiittee, composed of 
conservation leaders, as well as key National Park Service staff 
members, to define the purposes, the standards, and the alterna 
tives to park roads. In these times, the matter of roads of 
crausportatlon through the parks is very much at the heart of 
nearly every aspect of park management. The committee soon will 
have ready its recommendations on these matters. The committee s 
preliminary report reaffirms the necessity for restraint in road 
building; the principle that park roads are for leisurely travel; 
and the urgency of the need for functional alternatives to auto 
mobile travel in the parks. In this regard, recent technology is 
our ally in providing us with the prospect of less intrusive and 
more effective forms of transportation. 

Ihe Service is assessing the capabilities, cost, location, 
criteria, and ecological effects of a number of methods of 
transporting visitors buses, monorails, funiculars and rail 
conveyors. These forms of access might well prove adaptable to 
our use, with considerably less environmental intrusion which 
inevitably accompanies road construction and automobile traffic. 

In my judgment , we must noon impose more stringent controls over 
vehicles. It has been demonstrated beyond any question that 
transportation systems other than privately-operated automobiles 
can be highly successful, and we intend to vigorously continue 
our investigation of such systems for use in National Parks. 

National parklands exert increasingly salutary influences on 
the environment of our Nation. Through cooperative planning with 
local, State and Federal organizationsand the private sector 
we are acting on our legitimate concern for the environment in 
which the National Parks-- and their owners, the people of 
Americaexist . 


We Intend to continue to encourage development of alternate 
facilities outside parks, and to promote, where feasible, some 
more equitable distribution of present use patterns. 

While every reasonable indirect way will be sought to ease the 
burden, increasing use, ultimately, will force us to Impose 
some form of direct control over the volume and duration of 
park visits, especially in the older, more fragile areas. 

We have become increasingly concerned with our responsibilities 
in urban matters as they relate to historic preservation, city 
parks and recreation, sites and structures, visitor contact, 
transportation, beaut if icat ion, planning, zoning, and other 
activities requiring close cooperation with many Interests at 
many levels. 

A number of newly authorized areas, as well as some of the 
proposed areas, are in or near urban complexes. We have for 
many years been Intimately associated with urban affairs, not 
only here in Washington, D. C. , but also in such major cities 
as New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Boston. Most of 
America s population resides in metropolitan areas, and here 
the National Park concepts and philosophies can be employed to 
help cities achieve more handsome, more livable environments, 
and the values of conservation can be more effectively 

For this reason, last year I reorganized my Immediate staff to 
establish an Office of Urban Affairs, headed by a Deputy Associate 
Director to coordinate our urban programs. Although this office 
has been in operation only a few months, it has been extremely 
effective in carrying out and coordinating a large number of 
highly complex activities. 


The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is at work on the Nationwide 
Recreation Plan as prescribed by the Congress. A part of this 
plan is the National Park System Plan. During 1967, a special 
effort was made to move ahead on the National Park System Plan 
to provide information to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for 
the Nationwide Recreation Plan. 


In addition to studies of areas proposed for addition to the 
National Park System as Federal properties, the National Park 
System Plan involves the Natural Landmarks Program. 

During calendar 1967, 203 sites were studied by the Service for 
eligibility as Natural Landmarks. One hundred and twenty-five 
site evaluations were completed and, of these, 45 were approved 
as eligible. Twenty-three eligible sites were Included in the 
register at the request of their owners, and seven presentation 
ceremonies were held. 

In 1968, the Service plans to study ISO additional sites to 
determine their qualification for Natural Landmark status. 

To clarify the objectives and status of Service programs involving 
natural areas, publication of a brochure is planned for 1968 cover 
ing natural areas parks, monuments and landmarks --as a companion 
volume to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Through the Service s National Registries of Natural and Historic 
Landmarks, our endorsement and counsel is offered to those outside 
the Service who are preserving outstanding i..f ural and historical 
resources without the expenditure of any Federal funds for acqui 
sition. In many cases, this recognition of excellence can spell 
the difference between continued protection or irredeemable loss 
of significant resources. 


In October 1966, the Congress enacted the National Historic 
Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665), a legislative milestone that 
vastly broadens and strengthens the national preservation policy 
laid down by the Congress in the Historic Sites Act of 1935. To 
carry out the new responsibilities charged to the National Park 
Service, we have regrouped our existing professional units in 
this field and added two new ones to form the Office of Archeology 
and Historic Preservation. 

In addition to conducting previously existing programs of 
archeological salvage, Historic Sites Survey, Historic American 
Buildings Survey, and others, the new office has made considerable 
progress in launching the Nationwide Historic Preservation Program 
authorized by P.L. 89-665. 


For this fiscal year Che Congress appropriated $300,000 for matching 
grants -in-aid to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These 
funds are now being granted to the Trust on a regular schedule for 
acquisition and development of Trust properties and for educational 
and technical programs throughout the Nation. Although no funds 
were appropriated for grants -in-aid to the States, we have developed 
detailed guidelines for the State programs once funds are made 
available. We are now holding a series of regional meetings with 
the State Liaison Officers appointed by the Governors to carry out 
the State programs. 

The first published edition of the National Register of Historic 
Places is now nearing completion. Federal agencies have predicted 
a need to make 10,000 consultations of the Register per year. We 
are intensively studying the application of computer technology 
to the storage and retrieval of National Register data so as to 
make this use of the Register more efficient. 

The ten citizen members of the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, appointed by the President in March 1967, have held 
two working meetings. The Council has shown an enthusiasm and 
dedication that promises to make it an immensely effective body. 

The national historic preservation program united the resources 
of Federal, State, and local government, private societies, and 
individuals throughout the Nation in a major new effort to save 
the best of the past as an element around which to build for the 
future . 


I am sorry to have to report that the growing national crime problem 
is now an increasingly serious matter in some of our great National 
Parks. There is a marked increase in almost every category of 
offense, according to our preliminary data, but principally in 
"car clouting" (stripping automobiles of their valuable contents 
or parts), narcotics, vandalism, poaching, and traffic violations. 

Law enforcement has always been part of our responsibility, but 
with limited funds and manpower shortages , we have been hard 
pressed in some areas to cope with these increasing problems. 
I am proud to say that our park personnel very keenly feel their 
obligation for the protection of visitors and property. They have 
contributed much uncompensated time and effort, beyond their normal 
duty, to help meet this need. 


We have, of course, stepped up our law enforcement training 
effort. Some 75 men who have day-to-day law enforcement duties 
will benefit from practical and technical training sessions now 
under way. We are working with a number of other Federal agencies 
to provide our personnel with specialized training in narcotics 
control. Our personnel have also received training in law 
enforcement courses conducted by official agencies in several 
states. We are extremely grateful for this cooperation. 

From present indications, law enforcement and crowd control will 
be an increasing problem, for which there are no short range 
solutions. This is a matter we must meet head on with adequate 
numbers of well-trained personnel. 


The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, approved September 3, 1964, 
established mandatory requirements for the study of all roadless 
areas of 5,000 contiguous acres, or more, in units of the National 
Park System to determine their suitability or nonsuit ability for 
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and 
set time limits for its implementation. 

One -third of the wilderness study areas of the National Park 
System (19) were scheduled for study during 1964-67. It should 
be noted that the Wilderness Act allocated only three years 
(1964-67) for the completion of reviews on the first one-third 
of the study areas as compared with four years allocated for 
completion of the second review period which ends September 3, 

Because of the great amount of detailed staff work required to 
develop instructions, procedures and guidelines, as well as train 
personnel, prepare maps and master plans, schedule and hold hear 
ings, and evaluate the hearing testimony in order to comply with 
the legislation, we have not been able to meet the scheduled 
completion date for the first one-third of our areas. 

Through 1967, however, reviews of 15 of the 19 areas scheduled 
for study in the first three-year period have been completed 
through the stages of study and public hearings. The remaining 
four areas needed to complete the quota of 19 are scheduled for 
public hearings between now and May 1968. We are confident that 
this program will be on schedule before the end of this year. 


Wilderness studies by the Service are carried out as a part of 
the master plan program. For the information of the Committee, 
there is attached to my report a copy of the administrative 
policies (guidelines and procedures) of the Service for the 
conduct of this program. We would be pleased to supplement 
this information in any way the Committee wishes. 

The crucial far-reaching effects of this act upon the future 
management, visitor use, and development of the units of the 
National Park System are yet to be fully realized. For example, 
since enactment of the wilderness legislation in 1964, there 
appears to be a belief on the part of some that the providing 
of facilities within National Parks for the accommodation of 
visitors is now contrary to the purpose of National Parks and 
the Congressional policies laid down for their management and 
use. In our opinion, the wilderness act provides no support 
for such a view, since Section 4 of the Act provides that: 

"The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to 
be * * * supplemental to the purposes for which 
* * * units of the national park system are 
established and administered * * *." (Emphasis 
supplied) . 

Thus, we have proceeded in our wilderness studies on the basis 
that the Congress by enacting the wilderness legislation has not 
changed its long established policy for the management and use 
of the National Parks. 

We have also proceeded in our studies on the basis that the 
Congress could only have intended by making the Wilderness Act 
applicable to the National Park System that lands within National 
Parks designated by the Congress as wilderness should, if anything, 
result in a higher, rather than a lower, standard of unimpaired 
preservation. Accordingly, in our studies we have excluded from 
wilderness proposals lands within the National Parks which are 
subject to stock driveways, grazing, mineral and other reserva 
tions which constitute adverse uses of park lands. Additional 
details involving our wilderness use and management criteria 
are set forth in the statement attached to my report. 



Substantial progress has been made in our land acquisition 
program. Emphasis for the last several years has been on pur 
chasing lands in the newly authorized areas of the National Park 
System which will serve primarily the crowded metropolitan areas 

For fiscal year 1968, Congress appropriated $32,269,000 for 
acquisitions in various areas of the National Park System. The 
bulk of this money is earmarked for new areas. Of this appro 
priation, $3,326,800 is for inholdings in the older National 
Parks and Monuments. Total acreage acquired during the first 
half of fiscal year 1968 is 47,967 acres at a cost of 

Although it was not concluded in 1967, one of the most significant 
achievements of our 1968 fiscal year land acquisition program has 
been the acquisition of sufficient lands, and interests therein, 
to insure the establishment of Piscataway Park, first authorized 
by the Congress on October 4, 1961. This park, which insures 
the protection of the overview from Mount Vernon, is a conserva 
tion milestone in cooperative effort by private individuals, 
organizations and their government. 

As encouraging as our progress has been, there remains an 
especially difficult problem to which I invite your attention. 

Privately owned lands within our older National Parks and 
Monuments (usually those established prior to 1960) constitute 
a serious and growing threat to the integrity of our National 
Park System. 

The problem is particularly acute in the Natural Areas of the 
System where nearly one-third of a million acres remains in 
private ownership. Ranging in size from 0.2 of an acre in 
Mount McKinley National Park to more than 69,000 acres of land 
and semi -submerged land in the Everglades, these pockets of 
private property are found in 44 of the 66 National Parks and 
Monuments designated as Natural Areas. 

Compared with the total size of the Natural Areas more than 
22,000,000 acres the amount of privately owned land may seem 
statistically insignificant. But like the worm in the apple, 
these "inholdings" as we call them, often have a devastating 
effect upon the natural integrity of a park. 


This li due, In pare, to their strategic location. Private 
inholdings tend to cluster around the prime scenic attractions 
of the parks, or along natural access routes, where they are seen 
by millions of visitors. 

Another factor is that the harmful uses to which these pockets of 
private property are put have impact far beyond their immediate 

As the Izaak Walton League once described them, they often are 
"festering sores in an otherwise unspoiled area belonging to the 
whole public." 

There are, I believe, three overriding reasons why private 
inholdings are incompatible with the basic purpose and function 
of a National Park and should, therefore, be eliminated. 

Pirst, the wide variety of adverse uses that take place on these 
private parcels of property are destructive of park values- 
scenery, wildlife, forest and flowers in short, the very features 
that made the area worthy of being a National Park in the first 

Por example, the owner of an ocean front property in Virgin Islands 
National Park brought in a bulldozer and began to strip the sand 
from his beautiful beach to sell it commercially. Another landowner 
on scenic Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park chopped down the 
stately pines on his lakeside lot to clear the way for a mobile 
hot -dog stand. 

On other inholdings in National Parks and Monuments you will find 
sawmills and lumber yards; shoddy trailer courts and garish souvenir 
shops; gravel pits and logging operations. 

You also will find power plants and mining operations; gas stations 
and auto junkyards; garbage dumps and private airports, and last, 
but not least, proliferating residential subdivisions an increasingly 
serious problem. 

The second basic reason why inholdings are undesirable is the bad 
impact they have on the park visitor. They spoil his view of the 
natural scene and demean his esthetic experience with intrusions 


of a blatantly commercial nature. They deny him access to choice 
areas of the park, and block the development of new public facili 
ties for his enjoyment and protection. 

For example, the visitor who enters Olympic National Park via 
the Elwha River Road will be greeted by large signs announcing 
a trailer campsite development on one side of the road, and by 
an abandoned gas station adjoining a fenced cattle pasture on 
the other. 

At Lake McDonald in Glacier National Park, a privately owned 
sliver of lakefront property blocks the development of a badly 
needed public boat -launch ing ramp, while elsewhere on the lake 
12 -foot cyclone fences bar visitors from privately owned sections 
of beach. 

At Yosemite National Park, a gaping gravel pit on the bank of the 
Merced River preempts a desirable public campground site. 

In the Taylor Slough of Everglades National Park--a biological 
resource of enormous signif icance --quick-buck operators moved in 
with bulldozers to create primitive roads so they can peddle 
"waterfront" lots. Farther north, in the labyrinth country of 
the park, similar real estate promotions threaten the proposed 
Inland Wilderness Waterway from Flamingo to the Ten Thousand 
Islands area. The potential damage from these activities to the 
fragile ecology of the Everglades is incalculable. 

A third urgent reason for eliminating private inholdlngs from the 
parks is that money and manpower, needed for the basic job of pro 
tecting and preserving the parks and serving the visitors, must be 
diverted to deal with the administrative problems created by the 
adverse uses of the property. 

This is especially acute where large residential subdivisions 
exist within parks, as at Kings Canyon, Glacier, and Yosemite. 

Park superintendents suddenly find themselves confronted with 
most of the problems facing a professional municipal executive- 
law enforcement, fire protection, zoning and construction, sewage 
and garbage disposal, traffic control, inspection of food handlers 
and regulation of a variety of commercial activities. 


Wawona Village in Yosemite National Park is a striking example 
of this problem. Private ownership in this 640-acre section of 
land dates back to the 1890 s when it was acquired under the 
Homestead Act. 

Down through the years, Wawona Village, like Topsy, "just growed" 
without controls on zoning, lot sizes, street widths, construction, 
or any organized planning for water supply or sewage disposal. 
During the past three years, growth has been explosive. 

Today, Wawona Village is a booming subdivision of private in- 
holdings, criss-crossed by roads and utility lines, and bristling 
with "NO TRESPASSING" signs. It is a hodge-podge community of 
rental cabins, dilapidated cottages, expensive new year-around 
homes in the $20,000 to $60,000 bracket, motels and trailer 
courts, a lumber yard, stores and restaurants. 

Wawona is a community beset with perplexing problems of sewage 
and garbage disposal, fire protection and law enforcement, traffic 
control and public sanitation. Since most property owners draw 
their water from individual wells and dispose of their sewage 
through septic tanks and leaching fields, there also is a very 
real threat of water pollution in the future even though the 
water is now potable. 

The ever-increasing adverse uses of private lands , coupled with 
the increasing popularity of the parks, is intensified by the 
growth of population and the economic development of the country. 
This makes the inholdings problem one of the most serious facing 
the National Park Service today. 

And the situation can only get worse with time because the cost 
of acquiring these properties continues to escalate as the demand 
for desirable recreational land grows ever more fierce. 

The estimated cost of acquiring all the private inholdings in the 
Natural Areas of the Park System is now $114,000,000 compared with 
$59,000,000 in 1961 an increase of 93 percent in six years. And 
this is a conservative estimate. 

On the average, the price of private properties inside our National 
Parks is escalating at a rate of 12 to 24 percent per year. In 
some cases, it is a great deal more. 


In Grand Teton National Park, for example, the value of privately 
owned land has increased from an average $1,000 per acre in 1957 
to $4,500 per acre in 1965 a 350 percent increase in eight years. 

In Yosemite National Park, for example, a land company bought a 
160-acre tract in 1961 for $25,000. Four years later, the Depart 
ment of the Interior filed a notice of taking (condemnation) and 
deposited in court $175,000 as the estimated fair market value 
a 600 percent increase over the original purchase price. And the 
court has not yet made a final determination. 

Last year, the National Park Service bought the Sol Due property 
in Olympic National Park a 320-acre health resort featuring hot 
springs, for $880,000, more than three and one-half times the 
official appraisal price set just five years earlier. 

In 1962, the National Park Service purchased the 530-acre Steads 
Ranch in Rocky Mountain National Park for $750,000 up 50 percent 
from the asking price of $500,000 in 1958. 

In 1954, the 543 -acre McFarland Ranch in Glacier National Park 
was appraised at $60,000, but when we filed condemnation proceed 
ings last year, the appraised value had risen to $181,570 an 
increase of 300 percent in 12 years. Had we been able to buy 
this property in 1941, the price would have been an estimated 
$3,389, appraised value. 

These and other examples I could cite point to one inescapable 
conclusion: We must take action now on an orderly, sustained 
basis to acquire these private inhol dings that are causing an 
alarming erosion of natural values in our National Parks. 

However, I wish to make it clear that it is not our objective to 
proceed precipitously to disrupt the lives of our citizens who 
have spent years developing and operating homesteads and similar 
properties, many of which existed long before the establishment of 
some of our National Parks and Monuments, the continuance of which 
remain largely compatible with the purpose of the park. To insure 
full understanding on this matter we have developed administrative 
policies and procedures to guide the acquisition of land and water 
rights within the natural areas provided the Congress supports our 
program. A copy of this statement is attached to my report. 


In my judgment, the objectives of acquiring inholdings in our 
older National Parks and Monuments can best be achieved by the 
annual appropriation of a realistic amount of Land and Water Act 
monies in a manner that would give the Service the flexibility 
needed to meet the rapidly changing conditions of the real estate 
market . 

This would enable the Service to acquire lands at the lowest 
possible cost to the taxpaying public because we could purchase 
them on an "opportunity" basis, as they become available, or are 
about to be put on the market. 

It would also permit us to react quickly to block commercial or 
industrial development that might cause irreparable damage to 
National Park values when historical uses are about to be changed 
and it is not possible to prevent such developments through a 
negotiated purchase. 

Finally, it would enable us to move forward with an orderly, 
efficient program of eliminating a blight that threatens one of 
the most cherished natural resources of the American people their 
superlative system of National Parks and Monuments. 


Few will deny that the quality of the home directly affects the 
quality of the life of its occupants. The home of man doesn t 
end at the doorstep, or yard s edge. Home is the world we live 
in. Its furnishings are the soil and water, the air, the sunlight, 
the growing things, and the reminders of man s past, whose finest 
combinations are epitomized in the National Park System and the 
PARKSCAPE of which they are the key part. If man s destiny is to 
be the good life, we must make the home of man a place worth living 


HARTZOG, George Benjamin, Jr., govt. ofcl.; b. 
Colleton County, S.C., Mar. 17, 1920; 8. George 
Benjamin and Maxell (Steedly) H.; student Wofford 
Coll., Spartanburg, S.C., 1037; B.S. in Bus. Ad- 
minstrn., Am. U., 1053; m. Helen Carlson, June 28. 
1947; children Ceorge, Nancy, Edward. With Bur. 
Land Mgmt. and Nat. Park Service, Dept. Interior, 
1046-62; exec. dir. Downtown St. Louise, Inc., 
1062-63: asso. dir. Nat. Park Service, 1063-64, 
dir., 1064 ; trustee John F. Kennedy Center Per 
forming Arts, 1064 ; admitted to S.C. bar, 1042, 
Mo. bar, 1063, also Supreme Ct. U.S. Home: 4818 
Old Dominion Dr., Arlington, Va. 22207. Office; 
Interior Blclg., Washington 20240. 

Entry from Who s Who in America, 1967-1968. 




United States Department of the Interior 


December 15, 1972 

Mrs. Amelia R. Fry 
Regional Cultural History 
Room 486 Library 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 94720 

Dear Mrs . Fry : 

Before leaving my post on December 31, I want you 
to know how much I appreciate all your support and 
assistance during the time it has been my privilege 
to serve as Director of the National Park Service. 
It has been a genuine pleasure and a high honor to 
have had the opportunity to work with you. 

With warmest personal regards and every good wish, 
I am 

Siyicerely yours, 

1643 Chain Bridge Road 
McLean, Virginia 22101 

National Parks Centennial 1872-1972 




14144 UiCKEN f) 8THKLT 

(213) 780-8202 


This memorandum is written to set forth my views on the resignation of Director George B. 
Hartzog, Jr. of the National Park Service and the appointment of Ronald H. Walker as his 
successor. I hope it will answer most of the Questions coming to me by letter and telephone 
from persons in the Park Service as well as from people in private life. 

I deplore the departure of Director Hartzog for he is a career man, and I thought he has 
managed the National Park Service well in the nearly nine years of his leadership of it. I 
regret the decision not to seek a successor from the ranks of the National Park Service per 
sonnel and the appointment of Mr. Walker who has had no part in the national park admini 
stration . Not knowing Mr. Walker, I make no comment on his capabilities as an administra 
tor to direct the affairs of the service. No doubt he is a very capable man. I hope he will be 
a very successful administrator of the National Park Service. 

Fifty-six years ago when legislation to create the National Park Service division was being 
framed, Interior Department officials and members of the Congress deliberately planned a 
bureau along the lines of the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior and the 
U.S. Forest Service Li the Department of Agriculture; career bureaus of profossional men 
and women. The law establishing the National Park Service provided for an agency with all 
career officers. Of the seven directors heading the Service since 1916, six have been national 
park administrators. The one exception, that of Newton B. Drury, was involved in the Save- 
the-Redwoods League and closely associated with the National Park Service. Mr. Drury had 
been executive secretary of the former for twenty years and was a dedicated conservationist 
thoroughly familiar with national park affairs. 

My apprehensions are that a departure from the appointment policies of 56 years in selecting 
a National Park Service director may mean that the bureau s employees may no longer feel 
the aspiration to head their agency. 

As I see it, the National Park Service is one of the largest and most important conservation 
agencies and has been very successful in managing a huge segment of our American heritage. 
It has about 6,000 employees and supervises the management aid protection of nearly 
30,000,000 acres of public land. Always closely in contact with the public, the Park Service 
is a sensitive agency making professional administration essential. 

When the newly appointed director begins his service, he can count on my advice and support 
if he fools the need of it. On June 2, 1973, it will have been 60 years since I joined the Depart 
ment of the Interior. My loyally to it and its National Park Service has never faltered and is 
still as strong as ever. Furthermore I still firmly favor the plan to build around it the Depart 
ment of Natural Resources. 

Horace M. Albright 

December 26, 1972 


INDEX George B. Hartzog 

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites and Buildings, 45, 46 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of, 17 

Albright, Horace, 6 

American Forestry Association, 50 

Anderson, Clinton, 54 

Antiquities Act, 26 

Aspinall, Wayne, 52 

Bible, A. H. , 53 
Bridge Canyon, 24 

Canyonlands National Park, 21 

Church, F. F. , 54 

city parks program (of National Park Service), 7-8 

Cliff, Ed, 18 

concessions management (see National Park Service, park management policy) 

Congress, U.S. 

appropriations for parks, 55-58 

Interior and Insular Committees, 51 
conservation organizations, 58-59 
Crafts, Ed, 18 

dam construction, 21, 24 
Death Valley, 21 
Drury, Newton, 6, 21 

Forest Service, U.S. 

relations with Outdoor Recreation and Resources Review Commission 
(ORRRC) , 15-16 

retirement policy, 12 
Freeman, Orville, 17 

Glacier Bay National Park, 21 

Grand Canyon National Park, 24, 25 

Grand Teton National Park, 53 

grazing in national parks, 36 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 28-29, 33 

Hartzog, George B. 

education and experience to 1965, 1-7 

attorney for National Park Service, 2, 6 

career with National Park Service, 2-3, 6-7, 10, pass im 

Historic Sites Act of 1935, 41 

hunting in national parks, 38 


Interior, U.S. Department of, 1, 13, 17 
Bureau of Land Management, 39, 43 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) , 9, 13-16, 18 

Isle Royale National Park, 62 

Jackson, H. M. , 53, 54 

Jordan, B. E. , 53 

Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, 2-3, 6-7 

Krug, Julius, 64 

Land and Water Conservation Fund, 55-56 

Lee , Ronnie , 10 


concession bill, 62-63 

favoring park preservation, 21-23, 52-54 
Leopold, Starker, 36 

Mather, Steve, 20 

Metcalf, Lee, 54 

mining in national parks, 20-23 

Mission 66 Program, 55 

Moss, Ted, 54 

Mount McKinley National Park, 21 

Muir woods , 55 

National Park Advisory Board on Wildlife Management, 36 
National Park Service 

acquisition policy, 40-41 

park management policy, 36-42 

concessions management, 2, 3-4, 60-65 

relations to other agencies, 13-19 

relations with Congress, 45-48, 51, 60 

research program of, 33-34 

resources management program, 36-37 

structure and reorganization, 33-35, 41-44, 51 

Oregon Dunes , the , 54 

Outdoor Recreation and Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) , 13-16 

Ozark National Scenic Riverways, 47-48 

Park, Parkway and Recreation Area Study Act (1936), 14 

park rangers, responsibilities of, 31-32 


profile of usage, 30-31 

public attitude toward, 20-22, 46-49 
Parks for America. 14 
Point Reyes , 57 
Preston, John, 10 


Rivers, Ralph, 52 

Save the Redwoods League, 49 
Say lor, John, 52 
Scoyen, Eivind, 9-10 
Senate, U.S. 

Appropriations Committee, 57, 58 
Sequoia National Park, 59 
Sierra Club, 49, 52 
Simpson, M. L., 53-54 
Stoddard, Charles, 43 

transportation in national parks, 24-30 

Udall, Stewart, 3, 17-19, 22, 24, 41, 45, 46, 48 

urban parks, 7-8, 34 

Urban Renewal Administration, 18 

vandalism in parks, 31-32 
Vint, Thomas, 10 

Wilderness Act, 22-23, 57 

Wilderness Conference, 25, 52 

wilderness preservation, 8, 22 

wildlife management in national parks, 36, 37-38 

Wirth, Conrad, 3, 9-13, 33, 55 

Yellowstone National Park, 53 
Yosemite Valley, 32, 39 

Amelia R. Fry 

Graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1947 
with a B.A. in psychology, wrote for campus magazine; 
Master of Arts in educational psychology from the 
University of Illinois in 1952, with heavy minors in 
English for both degrees. 

Taught freshman English at the University of Illinois 

1947-48, and Hiram College (Ohio) 1954-55. Also 

taught English as a foreign language in Chicago 1950-53. 

Writes feature articles for various newspapers, was 
reporter for a suburban daily 1966-67. Writes pro 
fessional articles for journals and historical magazines, 

Joined the staff of Regional Oral History Office in 
February, 1959. 

Conducted interview series on University history, 
woman suffrage, the history of conservation and 
forestry, and public administration and politics. 

Director, Earl Warren Oral History Project 

Secretary, Oral History Association; oral history 
editor, Journal of Library History. Philosophy, and 
Comparative Librarianship. 

1JU ,